Business before Questions

University of London Bill [Lords]

Bill read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The Secretary of State was asked—

Leaving the EU: Farming Policy

John Lamont: What plans he has to implement an independent farming policy after the UK leaves the EU.

Edward Leigh: What plans he has to implement an independent farming policy after the UK leaves the EU.

George Eustice: The Government’s Agriculture Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, is the first major piece of legislation affecting agriculture since 1947. It provides certainty for farmers through a seven-year transition period and lays the foundations of a new farming policy based on public goods and fairness in the supply chain. At their request, it also includes provisions for Wales and Northern Ireland. This critical piece of legislation will enable us to seize the opportunities to help our farming, horticulture and forestry sectors become more profitable and sustainable.

John Lamont: Many farmers in my constituency are very concerned at the decision of the SNP Scottish Government to opt out of key parts of the Bill. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the fact that the Scottish Government have not presented alternative proposals, so many farmers may not be sure whether there will be a legislative framework to ensure support for farming after we leave the European Union?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he knows, agriculture is devolved. At the request of the Welsh Government there is a schedule containing provisions for Wales, and at the request of the Northern Ireland Administration there is a schedule containing provisions for Northern Ireland. Scotland has yet to decide what it wishes to do. We have maintained an open offer to insert provisions in the Bill at later stages should the Scottish Government wish us to do so.  Alternatively, they can legislate through their own Parliament, but they will need some legislation in order to be able to pay their farmers in 2020.

Edward Leigh: Can the Minister confirm that under a clean, global, free trade Brexit the United Kingdom will be able to protect farmers with tariffs just like every other country, and to provide more help for smaller farmers? Can we have more optimism from the Government, and less “Project Fear” with gumboots on?

George Eustice: As my hon. Friend knows, I have always been very optimistic about the opportunities presented by Brexit. It is important to note that in a no-deal Brexit, the UK would be free to set its own trade policy unilaterally. The options open to us would be to create autonomous tariff rate quotas, tariff rate suspensions or lower-band tariffs on certain goods if we wished to do so, but we would have an independent trade policy in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Jim Shannon: Has the Minister had any discussions with the Prime Minister about her withdrawal agreement’s implications for the transport and sale of livestock from Northern Ireland to the rest of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

John Bercow: That was not altogether adjacent to an inquiry about an independent farming policy. The hon. Gentleman might more usefully have shoehorned his inquiry into Question 2. Because he is a very public-spirited fellow, I will let him off on this occasion, but he should not repeat his offence.

George Eustice: The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration on a future economic partnership set out the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s approach to trying to deal with issues relating to the Northern Ireland border, and I am sure that we have many days of discussion on those matters to look forward to.

Patrick McLoughlin: Can my hon. Friend assure me that we will not be replacing one set of bureaucrats with another set of bureaucrats? How can we ensure that the right sort of assistance goes to the less favoured areas that are so important to our countryside?

George Eustice: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, but I can tell him that the Bill has important provisions that will enable us to strike down and improve some retained EU law, particularly in relation to the burden of administration. We are absolutely clear that we want a totally different culture in how we regulate farmers in the future. The Bill also enables us to target support at farmers who are delivering public goods, including those in severely disadvantaged areas.

Trade Agreements: Environmental and Animal Welfare

Helen Goodman: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Trade on maintaining environmental and animal welfare standards in future trade agreements.

David Rutley: Ministers and officials from DEFRA regularly meet their counterparts in the Department for International Trade to discuss a wide range of trade issues. The Government are clear that future trade agreements must work for consumers, farmers and businesses in the UK. We will not water down our standards on food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection as part of any future trade deals.

Helen Goodman: I begin by congratulating DEFRA on the contribution that it has no doubt made to the excellent Government document on the implications of Brexit. In the section on agri-food we see that a no deal could produce a 35% reduction in competitiveness, and even the Prime Minister’s estimates predict a reduction of 7%. So will the Minister confirm today that we will not allow unfair competition from imports from countries that produce to lower standards?

David Rutley: Yes, I can confirm that.

Zac Goldsmith: My hon. Friend will be aware of the overwhelming support for a ban on the export of live animals after we leave the European Union, and I know he has great sympathy with that position. Can he confirm that under the terms of the withdrawal agreement that would still be possible?

David Rutley: Yes, and we have a call for evidence on that.

Paula Sherriff: I recently met the lovely children in the reception classes of St John’s infant school in Dewsbury. They have written to the Secretary of State because they have been learning about the poaching of elephants and rhinos and they are really concerned about it. Can the Minister say something today to reassure them so they know we are taking action on this?

David Rutley: It is good to hear that the children at St John’s school are taking a keen interest in this. We are taking strong action through the Ivory Bill, and I congratulate the Environment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), on the work she is doing to take that forward.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister ensure that under any future trade agreements it is a requirement that food imported into the UK be produced to at least equivalent standards to those required of our domestic producers?

David Rutley: Yes—again, we will ensure that we do not water down those standards. I am sure that later in these questions we will hear from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who is doing a tremendous job in taking the Agriculture Bill through the House.

Deidre Brock: The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said in its report on the Agriculture Bill that the Government should put their money where their mouth is and accept   an amendment stipulating that food products imported as part of any future trade deal should meet or exceed British standards relating to production, animal welfare and the environment. I have tabled such an amendment; will the Minister undertake to accept it in order to keep Frankenstein foods off the tables of families the length and breadth of these isles?

David Rutley: I know that amendments have been tabled, and they will be properly considered on Report.

Air Pollution

Kelvin Hopkins: What steps he is taking to reduce levels of air pollution to legal limits.

Paul Blomfield: What steps he is taking to reduce levels of air pollution to legal limits.

Therese Coffey: The only statutory air quality limit the UK is currently failing to meet is on roadside concentrations of nitrogen dioxide. Members will be aware of our plans to combat air pollution. A £3.5 billion investment has already been set aside, but we are now working with 61 local authorities to tackle their exceedances. I have directed local authorities, including Sheffield, to achieve compliance in the shortest possible time. Some £495 million has been specifically set aside for those councils, but I will take legal action if necessary to make sure that councils do what they need to do.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the Minister for her answer, but she will know that at least 4.5 million children are growing up in areas with unsafe levels of particulate matters, with long-term implications for their health. UNICEF is now calling for the Government to introduce legally binding limits to meet the World Health Organisation recommended limit values for air pollution by 2025. Will Ministers consult UNICEF to discuss how that can be achieved?

Therese Coffey: The issue of particulate matter has grabbed my attention ever since I became a Minister in this Department. It is soot and dust, in essence, and one of our challenges is that a lot of particulate matter is naturally generated; for example, it is sand or sea salt. There are a number of different issues that we need to tackle, and we will continue to work with local authorities to bring the level of particulate matter down, because the Government are very conscious that we need to make sure that the most vulnerable in society, including children who are still of growing age, get the best possible start in life.

Paul Blomfield: The Minister has acknowledged the challenge Sheffield faces. We have multiple sites where nitrogen dioxide levels exceed legal limits and threaten the health of our people. Sheffield’s council has ambitious and innovative plans to tackle the problem, but its resources have been drained by eight years of deep cuts. Will the Minister commit to provide the funds we need to clean Sheffield’s air, and will she meet me and representatives of the council to discuss our plans?

Therese Coffey: Sheffield City Council could start by stopping cutting down trees, which is not good for the environment and costs money. However, it is making good progress with its plan, and it is considering introducing a charging clean air zone—of course, it has had the power to do that since 2000. It is being funded by DEFRA to make sure it gets on with its plan—it will be able to bid for further funding, but it is being given the funding it needs to do that.

Caroline Spelman: The Government are rightly tackling air pollution, but the proposed diesel ban is having the unintended consequence that people are hanging on to their older, more polluting diesel vehicles rather than investing in the new, cleaner generation of Euro 6 standard models. Will the Minister commend cities such as Birmingham for proposing a distinction between the newer and older models in their low emissions zones, and will she urge London to do the same?

Therese Coffey: My right hon. Friend is right. It has been a pleasure to work with Birmingham City Council, which is making reasonable progress on producing its plan. There is no doubt that “dieselgate” had a massive impact on people’s willingness to do what the Government were recommending, so it has not had the intended consequences. We will continue to work with car manufacturers, and the Chancellor has changed vehicle excise duty to ensure that people are incentivised to buy the cleanest possible vehicles.

Graham Stringer: The burning of biomass makes a major contribution to air pollution. The Government have estimated that 1.7 million lives are lost every year because of the burning of biomass, but they have now stopped making those calculations. Why?

Therese Coffey: I am not aware of the figure to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. I am conscious of the impact that burning has, which is why we have a consultation about the domestic burning of household smoky coal, wet wood and similar materials, but I will look carefully into the issue that he has raised.

Clive Betts: Pollution is not just a matter for city centres; it is also about major roads. Around the M1 in my constituency, levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution have got so bad that, for the first time ever, the Department for Transport is bringing in variable speed limits just to deal with pollution. It is also looking at installing barriers to absorb NO2. What involvement does the Minister’s Department have in that? Does she think that those measures will be successful, and will she report back to the House on their effectiveness in due course?

Therese Coffey: The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), and I work closely together on this issue. My Department and the Department for Transport have a joint air quality unit, and I am in regular contact with Highways England about its progress on improving air quality on the strategic road network. I welcome the work that it is considering to change speed limits and to install the barriers to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Sue Hayman: The Government’s plans to tackle air pollution are unravelling into a shambolic and piecemeal mess. Exposure to fine particulate matter is linked to poor health, including asthma, heart disease, stroke and lung cancer, and new evidence shows impacts on diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. We must ensure that we have the highest standards of public health, so will the Minister tell us how she will enshrine the World Health Organisation’s limit on fine particulate matter into UK law?

Therese Coffey: We have already agreed targets that are now in law regarding PM10 and PM2.5, and we are well below those targets. We will continue to work on this. I know that the House is eager to see the outcome of the clean air strategy, which I expect to be published shortly. I can assure the hon. Lady that this issue is close to my heart, especially the question of particulate matter, because I am very conscious of the impact that it can have. However, we need to be careful when we read some of the reports, because there is often a correlation link but not necessarily a causal link, which means that we still need to do research on these matters. I am pleased that the Department of Health and Social Care, through Public Health England, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are undertaking that research.

Trade Agreements: Environmental and Animal Welfare

Neil Parish: What steps he is taking to ensure that agricultural products produced to lower environmental and animal welfare standards than UK products will not be included in any future trade agreements.

George Eustice: Our current high standards, including on import requirements, will apply when we leave the EU. Some of them, such as the ban on the use of growth-promoting hormones, are already in domestic legislation. Others, such as the ban on chlorine washing of poultry, will be brought on to our statute book through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Countries seeking access to our markets in future will have to abide by our standards.

Neil Parish: Ministers are naturally keen to raise welfare standards in this country, and to reduce the use of antibiotics and produce greater and better food than we already have, but if we are undermined by imports, that will put farmers out of business and reduce global animal welfare. Will Ministers therefore accept the amendment that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has tabled to ensure that imports are not allowed into this country if they do not meet our standards of production?

George Eustice: As my hon. Friend will be aware, we had a good discussion on these matters in the Bill Committee, and I look forward to discussing his amendment on Report. Our view is that the types of measure that he has outlined would probably not be right, because it is sometimes possible to recognise equivalence, and our standards do not have to be identical in drafting regulations.   However, there are a number of other approaches that some countries take, including scrutiny and oversight roles for Parliaments as trade deals are discussed.

Kerry McCarthy: I very much support the amendment from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I have also tabled new clause 1 on the same topic. It is estimated that by 2050, antibiotic resistance could cause up to 10 million deaths a year, and we know that 80% of the antibiotics sold in the US are sold for animal use. We heard from the chief veterinary officer yesterday at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee about what we are doing to reduce antibiotics use here. Will the Minister resist it in US imports too?

George Eustice: The hon. Lady makes an important point. Here in the UK, we have made huge progress in reducing the use of antibiotics. Poultry in particular has seen a 50% reduction in the use of antibiotics. US agriculture remains quite backward and some years behind in these matters, but we continue to work together to try to raise its game and approach.

Simon Hoare: My hon. Friend’s good will on this issue is recognised, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s, but I re-emphasise the seriousness with which we on the Agriculture Bill Committee dealt with this issue. We cannot rely on good will. We need certainty for our food producers across the country on the face of a Bill—it could be the Trade Bill or the Agriculture Bill—that standards will be maintained and that they will not be priced out of the market.

George Eustice: My hon. Friend made his case powerfully in Committee. He will recall that, as a result, I undertook to give this issue further consideration and have further discussion with colleagues in government in time for Report.

David Drew: The discussion in the Agriculture Bill Committee was very good, but unfortunately the Government chose not to accept our amendments, so I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and the whole of the Select Committee on tabling theirs. I hope the Minister will confirm today that he will accept that amendment.

George Eustice: As I have explained, I do not believe that that particular amendment is the right way to approach the issue, nor is the Agriculture Bill the right place for such an amendment, as this is a trade issue. Nevertheless, I gave an undertaking to have conversations and discussions with other Departments in time for Report.

Farming: Funding Schemes

Alex Burghart: What steps he is taking to deliver equitable funding schemes for farmers throughout the UK.

George Eustice: Once we leave the common agricultural policy, we will be able to create fairer funding for farmers, with greater freedoms across the four Administrations. On 16 October, the Government announced a review of the intra-UK allocation of domestic farm support funding  between 2020 and the end of the Parliament. The review will consider a range of factors that reflect the unique circumstances of each part of the United Kingdom.

Alex Burghart: I very much welcome the news that we will have fairer funding across all four parts of the UK after we leave the EU. Will the Minister reassure me that this fairer funding will take account of each country’s individual circumstances, particularly the environment, their agriculture and their socioeconomic needs?

George Eustice: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the review will indeed will consider all those issues—the environment, agriculture and socioeconomic circumstances of each part of the UK. We have a manifesto commitment to keep the agricultural budget the same until 2022 and a commitment to put in place a new funded scheme thereafter.

Barry Sheerman: Will the Government Front-Bench team stop blaming Europe for everything in farming and recognise that it is modern industrial methods of agriculture that are responsible for denuding our country of wildlife and for species going into extinction? That is the problem. We need a funding system that is equitable but deals with that problem.

George Eustice: It is Government policy to support a more sustainable approach to agriculture. The common agricultural policy has failed to do that. The new policy that we have set out in the Agriculture Bill will deliver a fairer, more sustainable and more profitable agriculture for the future.

Luke Graham: Since it was established in the Agriculture Bill Committee that further primary legislation is required for direct payments to be made to Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that Scotland is in the UK Agriculture Bill and that it conforms with the needs of the National Farmers Union Scotland and my constituents?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said earlier, there is an open offer from the Government to add a schedule for Scotland at a later stage of the Bill’s progress, should Scotland wish us to. This area is devolved to Scotland. The Scottish Government have the power to act in this space and they need to make up their mind and decide what they want to do.

Alan Brown: How can the Minister talk about ethical funding when Westminster has stolen £160 million of convergence uplift meant for Scottish farmers? What are the Government doing to replace that up to 2020, and what is going to happen beyond 2020?

George Eustice: As the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware, the average receipt for Scottish farmers tends to be higher than in other parts of the UK, because Scottish farmers have larger holdings in more disadvantaged areas. We are having this review precisely to address the importance of fair funding in the future.

Leaving the EU: Fishing Industry

Chris Law: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effect on the fishing industry of the UK leaving the EU.

John McNally: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effect on the fishing industry of the UK leaving the EU.

Michael Gove: I have regular discussions with my Cabinet colleagues and, indeed, with all Members of the House about the benefits for the UK fishing industry of leaving the common fisheries policy and becoming, once more, an independent coastal state. The Government’s vision for this bright future was set out in the White Paper, “Sustainable Fisheries for Future Generations.”

Chris Law: We all know we cannot trust the Tories with Scotland’s fishing industry. After all, former Prime Ministers Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher and John Major all sold Scotland’s fishing down the water. Now we know that the current Prime Minister has signed an agreement with the EU to
“build on…existing reciprocal access and quota shares.”
Can the Secretary of State help the House understand how that is in any way taking back control of the waters?

Michael Gove: I have enormous affection and respect for the hon. Gentleman, and he makes his case with characteristic fluency, but I fear he has been misled. The truth is that, as an independent coastal state, we will be able to decide who comes into our waters and on what terms. It is perhaps rare for me to quote the French President, Emmanuel Macron—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, but I want to hear the right hon. Gentleman quote the French President.

Michael Gove: The soi-disant Jupiterian President was, nevertheless, speechless with rage on Sunday when he discovered that this withdrawal agreement and the future political declaration mean that France will not have access to our waters, save on our terms. His anger should be a cause for celebration on both sides of the House.

John McNally: Yesterday the Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that, as an independent coastal state, the UK will be able to “negotiate access” to its waters with other countries. Constituents have asked me why, at such a pivotal and crucial time for the fishing industry in Scotland, there are no Scottish Tory constituency MPs in the Secretary of State’s Department in order to be a more effective and balanced Government.

Michael Gove: Far be it from me to say but, as someone who was born in Edinburgh and brought up in Aberdeen, and who had the privilege of growing up in a  household in which my father ran a fish processing business and his forebears went to sea, I think the interests of the fishing industry are very much at the heart of the Department. I would love to extend an open welcome to my Scottish Conservative colleagues to join the ministerial team but, sadly, the size of our ministerial team is a matter for the Prime Minister, rather than me.
One thing I would say, though, is that, in the consideration of our Bills in Committee, and in the shaping of policy in the interest of rural and coastal Scotland, Scotland’s Conservative MPs have been consistently more effective in delivering more money, more freedom and more rights even than the nicest and friendliest Scottish nationalist, which of course the hon. Gentleman is.

Sheryll Murray: It is vital that the UK is in complete control of our fisheries after the implementation period ends, and that our fish stocks are not used as a currency to buy any trade deal. Will my right hon. Friend look at including in the Fisheries Bill a cut-off date of the end of December 2020, and will he urge the Prime Minister not to use our fish as a currency?

Michael Gove: The fishing industry has no stronger friend in this House than my hon. Friend, and she is absolutely right to remind us that fishing will not be bartered away in the event of any final deal. I will make sure that we work with her to ensure that consideration is properly given in Committee to all possible safeguards for our fishing industry.

Bill Grant: Can the Secretary of State update the House on how his Department is working with the devolved Administrations to adopt common approaches to fisheries management to preserve UK vessels’ right to fish in the waters around all four home nations?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that detailed, practical point, and he is absolutely right. Notwithstanding the occasional disagreements on the Floor of the House, I have to say that the Scottish Government Minister responsible for fisheries, Fergus Ewing, has behaved, I think, in a very mature fashion in making sure that UK vessels can have access across the waters of the UK, while, of course, respecting, and indeed enhancing, the devolution settlement.

David Duguid: Regardless of what happens in the coming days and weeks, we are going to become an independent coastal state, like Norway, Iceland and the Faroes. Like them, we will have to come to a fisheries agreement with the EU. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the negotiation of that agreement specifically, he and the officials in his Department should take the lead?

Michael Gove: Yes, I do. It is vital that we are there getting the best possible deal for this country. I said that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) was probably the strongest voice for the fishing industry in this House, but there is stiff competition for that role now that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) is here. I look  forward to working with him and other colleagues, and those in the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and elsewhere, who recognise that there is a sea of opportunity for our fishing industry as an independent coastal state.

John Bercow: The Secretary of State is characteristically keen to keep all his Back-Bench colleagues happy, and that will have been noted by the House.

Luke Pollard: In five weeks, the EU discard ban will kick in. While much attention is on what fishing will look like after Brexit, this poorly implemented discard ban before Brexit risks tying up our fishing fleet, especially mixed fisheries such as those in the south-west. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the concerns of the fishing industry are listened to and that this ban does not result in its boats being tied up alongside?

Michael Gove: It is not just Government Back Benchers whom I wish to be kind to; it is also Opposition Front Benchers, because the hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. It is the case that the management of the discard ban in the past, and potentially in the future, is a real issue of contention. My hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been talking to a number of fishing industry representatives to see whether we can make sure that at this December Council we can put in place appropriate mitigation measures. One thing we can be sure of is that as an independent coastal state we can take appropriate conservation measures in a way that does not lead to those who are practising mixed fisheries facing the sorts of problems the hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to.

Pollinators

Alan Mak: What steps he is taking to protect bees and other pollinators.

Michael Gove: Protecting pollinators is a priority for this Government and that is reflected in our 10-year national pollinator strategy for England. Our 2017 review of the strategy has highlighted positive progress and the Government recently announced £50,000 to support large-scale pollinator projects in Devon and, of course, in Hampshire, and £60,000, following petitioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), to develop pollinator habitat mapping.

Alan Mak: Community groups and local schools play an important role in protecting our pollinators. What support can my right hon. Friend give to those groups? Will he join me in congratulating St Albans Church of England Primary School in Havant on its award-winning work in this area?

Michael Gove: I absolutely agree; community groups, including our Wildlife Trusts network, do an enormously valuable job in making sure that the habitats that pollinators depend on are kept in good repair. It is also the case that schools across the country are playing an increasingly important role, and next year’s Year of Green Action will give me and my hon. Friend the opportunity to  congratulate those schools and those teachers, who are doing so much to remind us of our environmental responsibilities.

Chris Elmore: The Secretary of State will be aware that lots of small and medium-sized enterprises that produce honey do an awful lot of work to try to protect bees. For example, Tŷ Mêl farm in my constituency does a lot of work on ethical beekeeping and making sure we produce good Welsh honey. What more support can he give small businesses that are not only producing honey, but supporting bees?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I congratulate the business in his constituency on its initiative. From the Welsh valleys to the rolling acres of Hampshire, and indeed the rich heather-strewn hills of Scotland, UK honey is a world-beater, but we must do more to protect our pollinators.

Deposit Return Scheme

Wera Hobhouse: What progress has been made on introducing a deposit return scheme for plastic bottles.

Therese Coffey: The consultation on a deposit return scheme will be published shortly and it will look at the details of how a scheme could work, alongside the other measures to increase recycling rates. We are continuing to work with the devolved Administrations, potentially on a UK scheme.

Wera Hobhouse: A recent BBC documentary showed a dead sperm whale with a large amount of plastic waste in its stomach, including four plastic bottles. So given the urgency, and the keen interest that my constituents have in this issue, can the Minister actually confirm a date of the roll-out of a deposit return scheme?

Therese Coffey: No, I cannot, because we have yet to consult on the scheme. It is important that we give proper consideration not only to the opportunities but to the challenges. The hon. Lady is right to continue to raise the impact of people being careless with litter, which is how plastic often ends up in the marine environment. That is something that everyone in the House wants to prevent.

Mary Creagh: The Environmental Audit Committee’s report on the Arctic is published today. Because of weather and tides, most of our marine plastic ends up in the Arctic. It is imperative that the deposit return scheme is introduced as soon as possible. Will the Minister confirm that the measures to introduce the DRS will be included in the draft environment Bill when it is published? Or will it be in separate legislation and thereby further delayed?

Therese Coffey: It really matters that we get the DRS right and that we get the outcomes that we all want to see. It is just a little too early to commit to a certain kind of legislation; we must wait until we have done the consultation.

Sandy Martin: Given how successful the plastic bag levy has been, reducing the use of plastic bags by 80%, and bearing in mind that the working group report in February this year showed that Germany’s deposit return scheme delivers the recycling of 98% of polyethylene bottles, will the Minister tell us whether we will have a deposit return scheme, as suggested by the evidence, or whether her decision will be determined by the British Soft Drinks Association?

Therese Coffey: I note that after 13 years of a Labour Government nothing similar was introduced. I have looked into this issue carefully and visited several countries. The thing is, the front end is similar for everybody, but we must get the back-end solution right, because that is what we need to deliver the scheme effectively, rather than just getting headlines.

Topical Questions

John Bercow: I remind the House that topical questions are supposed to be significantly briefer.

Philip Dunne: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Gove: I am looking forward to addressing the annual conference of the CLA—the Country Land and Business Association—later today, where I will congratulate the association on its fantastic work in environmental enhancement.

Philip Dunne: Good farming practice depends on multi-year rotations. The existing financial support system, the common agricultural policy, is multi-year and the proposed transition system is multi-year. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the Agriculture Bill comes back on Report, it will include a multi-year framework?

Michael Gove: I will enlist my hon. Friend’s persuasive powers in making just such a case to the Treasury.

Martyn Day: Guide dog owners rely on their dogs to get around safely. They are rightly worried about what will happen with EU travel after any transition period or, worse still, in the event of no deal, which would require four months of advance planning. What contingencies have the UK Government put in place to minimise delays to guide dog travel? What post-Brexit arrangements will there be for pet travel?

David Rutley: The Government have already set out very clear guidelines as to what needs to be done ahead of no deal. The feedback that we have had already tells us that this is being well received.

Simon Hoare: Rural roaming can bring huge benefits to farmers, businesses and our rural communities. We are at a key point in trying to deliver it, so will my right hon. Friend commit to use all his considerable energy to convince the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport  that it is the right thing to do, is affordable and can be done quickly?

Michael Gove: I presume that my hon. Friend means roaming applied to mobile telephones, rather than to wild rovers.

Simon Hoare: Yes.

Michael Gove: I will absolutely do that. I have had a number of fruitful conversations with DCMS and, indeed, rural roaming is a key plank of the CLA’s campaign to improve connectivity in rural areas, which is vital to improving productivity across the field.

Vicky Foxcroft: A doctor from Deptford, the most deprived part of my constituency, recently welcomed the new low emission bus zone along New Cross Road, after she had seen a rise in cases of lung disease and asthma among her patients. Does the Minister acknowledge the role that such schemes can play in tackling the inequality of increased air pollution in deprived areas?

Therese Coffey: Absolutely, which is why we have been pleased to provide Transport for London with funding. The Mayor has received additional funding for certain kinds of buses and other things to do; we just want him to continue to get on with it.

Jeremy Lefroy: What is my hon. Friend’s assessment of the implications of the Migration Advisory Committee’s report on immigration for the agricultural and food processing industries in the United Kingdom?

George Eustice: The Government obviously did not agree with every element of the Migration Advisory Committee report. The food industry is the most important manufacturing industry in this country and horticulture is one of our most productive agricultural sectors. It is important that we ensure that these crucial industries have the labour requirements that they need in future.

Gareth Snell: Illegal waste sites such as the Twyford factory in Stoke-on-Trent pose a huge risk to our environment. Despite the £10 million that was in the Budget, that site is not eligible for that help because it remains in private ownership. Court action has ordered a clearance. The local authority and the fire service want it cleared. Will the Minister meet me and those interested parties so that we can find a way forward so the site can be cleared once and for all?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman is a formidable advocate for his constituency and I will make sure that a meeting happens at ministerial level in order to try to ensure that that waste site is tackled.

Kevin Foster: The Secretary of State will have heard the comments of the French President about access to our fishing grounds. Can he confirm to the fishing industry in Torbay that those are hollow threats and that we will in future decide our own fishing policy?

Michael Gove: Certainement. Le Président de la France—

Helen Goodman: You are not allowed to speak in French.

Michael Gove: Sorry. I will translate. The French President is, on this occasion, wrong.

John Bercow: Stunning, absolutely stunning—the articulacy and the accent. What a dramatic performance by the right hon. Gentleman.

Carol Monaghan: I believe that the 13 Scottish Tories have all signed the latest pledge of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation to reject the Prime Minister’s deal. Will the Secretary of State do the same?

John Bercow: In fact, I was almost as pleased with the right hon. Gentleman’s performance as possibly was the right hon. Gentleman.

Michael Gove: No, I am afraid not, Mr Speaker. I thought that it was a hesitant and fumbling schoolboy attempt of the language, but if it brought you pleasure then my day has not been entirely wasted.
The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is clear that the Government’s approach to safeguarding our fishing stocks, and indeed enhancing opportunities, is one that we wholeheartedly endorse, which is why it is behind the deal that the Prime Minister has secured.

John Bercow: I so enjoyed it, and the right hon. Gentleman knows how much I enjoyed it.

Zac Goldsmith: In many ways, the UK has led the agenda on wildlife protection. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we would enhance that reputation if, like France, the Netherlands and Australia, we banned the import of so-called hunting trophies?

Michael Gove: I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I find the idea of trophy hunting a difficult one to contemplate as anyone’s idea of a wise use of time or resources. However, it is the case that the current regime allows trophies to be imported, provided that there is no impact on the sustainability of species. We keep these rules constantly under review and I am grateful to him, to Members across this House and to non-governmental organisations for keeping a spotlight on the issue because it is one that troubles many of us.

Chi Onwurah: I look forward to welcoming you to Newcastle this evening, Mr Speaker. I know that you, like many of my constituents, will appreciate the gorgeous Northumberland and County Durham countryside that surrounds it. The US countryside is much different, with wheat farms the size of small counties and pig farms the size of small towns. How will the Secretary of State protect our glorious countryside when he expects our farmers to compete with American farming methods post Brexit?

Michael Gove: I have to join the hon. Lady in saying that, from Alnwick to Bishop Auckland, the north-east contains—[Interruption.] Okay, from Morpeth to Seahouses—

Ian Mearns: Berwick to Barnard Castle.

Michael Gove: Exactly. There is a whole gazetteer. From Consett to Sedgefield, there are beautiful parts of our country in the north-east. Thanks to the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), who is enjoying maternity leave at the moment, I had the opportunity to talk to hill farmers in her constituency. I have also received representations from the Members for all the Northumberland constituencies. I am on their side in making sure that we do not dilute our high environmental and animal welfare standards and that we continue to support farmers to produce the high-quality food that they do, which is the envy of the world.

Philip Hollobone: What steps is the Secretary of State taking now to ensure that, after Brexit, once we are free of EU controls, halal and kosher meat is appropriately labelled?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend raises a very important point, but we have to consider not just high animal welfare standards and appropriate consumer information, but the sensitivities and traditions of our religious communities. Given the increase that we have seen in expressions of hostility towards religious minorities in this country, this is an area that requires handling with great care, but he is absolutely right to say that we do need to look at ways in which we can improve animal welfare at every stage in the life of the animals with whom we share this planet.

Rachael Maskell: Page 33 of the national flood resilience review highlights how natural upper catchment management must be part of the next comprehensive spending review. How will the Minister ensure that upper catchment management is a major feature of that impending spending review, so that we can particularly protect York with catchment management on the River Ouse and the River Foss?

Therese Coffey: We do have a £15 million scheme, which is going into much greater detail in assessing the different methods of natural flood management. This will be an important part of flood defences for homes and businesses, but we need to ensure more than just anecdote, although I do recognise that some of these methods are seen to work already. This will help constituents in the hon. Lady’s wonderful city of York.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

UK Food and Drink

John Spellar: What steps the Commission is taking to increase the sale of UK-produced food and drink (a) in catering outlets and (b) for events hosted on the parliamentary estate.

Tom Brake: The right hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to know that there is a lot of promotional activity for British food. For example, Red Tractor Week took place in September, and we worked with British farmers and the National Farmers Union to promote British food. He will also be pleased to know that the wine list in Strangers’ and Members’ includes a good selection of English wines. Something that he may want to consider—if he has not already taken advantage of it—is that individual Members can ask for a specific cask of ale from an independent regional brewer from their constituency to be placed in the Strangers’ bar.

John Spellar: I am certainly aware of the provision for regional breweries in the Strangers’ bar. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the steps that the Commission has taken on this and on reducing plastic use, but will the Commission take the lead from other public bodies in ensuring that our suppliers are, at every possible opportunity, prioritising and insisting on supporting British farmers, manufacturers and workers, and maximising UK-produced food and drink, especially from small and medium-sized enterprises?

Tom Brake: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in this place we push hard for very high quality produce, which is often British-sourced. The overwhelming majority of food throughout the catering establishments is British. If he is suggesting that we should adopt a “buy British” policy, I am sure he aware that that is not something that we can do in practice.

Philip Hollobone: As the House of Commons Commission is encouraging British-produced food and drink on the parliamentary estate, may I commend to the right hon. Gentleman Weetabix breakfast cereal made in Burton Latimer and Warner Edwards gin made in Harrington—both within the Kettering constituency—as appropriate for the start and end of the parliamentary day?

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman’s love of Weetabix is now on the record.

Thangam Debbonaire: I am sure that other cereals are available. I commend the moves of the catering outlets and events teams to increasing UK-produced food and drink, but will the right hon. Gentleman recommend to the Commission an increase in the amount of UK-produced healthy food, especially after the success of Vegan November?

Tom Brake: I will certainly pursue that suggestion to ensure that the food here is not only British, but healthy as well.

Chris Elmore: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), may I stress to the right hon. Gentleman that there really is a need for more diversity in the food served by the catering outlets, particularly vegetarian and vegan food? This is an extremely important issue for members of the public and Members of the House.

Tom Brake: Absolutely; it is necessary for this estate to respond to the increase in veganism, perhaps in the way in which the kebab industry has, whereby vegan kebabs are now available.

Cox Report

Marion Fellows: What representations the Commission has received on bullying and harassment since the publication of the Cox report.

Carol Monaghan: What representations the Commission has received on bullying and harassment since the publication of the Cox report.

Brendan O'Hara: What representations the Commission has received on bullying and harassment since the publication of the Cox report.

Tom Brake: The Commission has received representations from individuals, companies, the unions, interest groups and hon. Members, for which we are extremely grateful. Correspondence has included general opinion as well as extensive comment on the report’s findings. We have also received offers of assistance from both companies and individuals on the approach that we should take to maximise the opportunities for change.

Marion Fellows: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any actions taken as a result of this report must be taken at the earliest opportunity, and that while we can all agree that this is a time of particular political turbulence, that should not be held up as a reason for postponing such actions?

Tom Brake: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. She will be pleased to know that the Commission has debated this on a number of occasions already. We have issued a statement, and we have two further meetings already planned to ensure that the necessary priority and emphasis is indeed placed on this critical issue.

Carol Monaghan: Female Members in this House were not surprised that 70% of the complainants responding to the Cox report were women. I am the 400th woman to be elected to this place; there are more than 400 men currently sitting as Members of the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that until we address this gender imbalance in our representation, this abuse will continue?

Tom Brake: I certainly agree that we need to ensure that we have 50:50 representation in this place. No doubt the hon. Lady, like me and others here, has taken part in events to promote that. Clearly, we cannot wait until we have 50:50 representation to address these very serious issues. That is precisely what the Cox report and, indeed, the White report that is now under way are focusing on to ensure that we address this problem as quickly as possible, not in the next 50 or so years’ time.

Brendan O'Hara: The Cox report revealed that a culture of bullying and harassment had spread to every part of this place. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me, and give confidence to all those working across the estate, that if a complete, top-down reorganisation is required to effect genuine and lasting change, that will  happen, and that seniority, length of service or any other factor will play no part in shielding anyone from scrutiny or criticism where it is warranted?

Tom Brake: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I think that the House, and everyone in this place, has recognised that there is a serious issue that we need to address. I would draw his attention, and that of other Members, to an email that is sitting in their inboxes encouraging them to take part in the consultation around the grievance scheme to ensure that, for instance, allegations of historical abuse are effectively addressed within the scheme. I hope that he and others will want to contribute to that.

Church Commissioners

The right hon. Member for Meriden, representing the Church Commissioners was asked—

Northern Forest Initiative

Rachael Maskell: What discussions the Commissioners have had with representatives of the northern forest initiative; and if she will make a statement.

Caroline Spelman: The Church Commissioners own 3,500 acres of forestry in England, some of which falls within the focus of the northern forest initiative. The Church Commissioners have had some high-level conversations with the Woodland Trust and would certainly consider being part of this initiative.

Rachael Maskell: With 50 million trees expected to be planted as part of the northern forest initiative to improve air quality and mitigate flooding, as well as to improve wellbeing and be there for us all to enjoy, it is really important that the Church of England estate also participates in that, not least as the 13th biggest landlord in our nation, owning land the size of Iceland, I believe. How many trees will the Church of England be planting, particularly around the area of York, where the archbishop’s palace, no less, was affected by the floods of 2015?

Caroline Spelman: The Church Commissioners own a great deal of agricultural land. The important thing with the planting of trees is that it needs to be on land suitable for that purpose. Prime agricultural land is usually reserved for food production, but land that is, for example, wet—it can be in close proximity to rivers—is better suited to tree production. The hon. Lady, representing the city of York, has every interest in trees being planted that would slow the flow of the river through her city.

Persecution of Christians

Fiona Bruce: What steps the Church of England is taking to raise awareness in the Government of the persecution of Christians throughout the world.

Caroline Spelman: The Church of England remains concerned about the increase in violence and intimidation against Christians and all religious minorities across the globe. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) reminded colleagues  at this week’s Prime Minister’s questions of the visit of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Theophilos III, who will be in Parliament next Wednesday. He is regarded as a senior cleric from the Christian communion in Jerusalem, and he is to give a talk about the future of Christians in the Holy Land.

Fiona Bruce: Aid to the Church in Need’s latest world persecution report and Baroness Cox’s “Hidden Atrocities” report, both published this month, state that the religious element of attacks by militants on communities in northern and central Nigeria is increasing. For example, 539 Christian churches have been destroyed in Nasarawa state alone in 2018. Catholic Bishop William Avenya of Gboko has now warned the international community,
“Please don’t make the same mistake as was made with the genocide in Rwanda.”
Will the Church of England engage with Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to help fully address those grave concerns?

Caroline Spelman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In fact, on Monday, the Archbishop of Canterbury will brief members of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, as part of its inquiry on Nigeria. He knows the country extremely well, as he worked there, and has visited it as recently as October. He is deeply concerned about attacks on Christians and has urged our Government to help Nigeria to enforce security and promote reconciliation between people of different faiths.

Helen Goodman: The Rev. Steven Saxby organised for me an excellent briefing with Anglicans from the Philippines, where there are serious human rights abuses. Could the right hon. Lady ask the Church of England whether it is tackling that in a structured way?

Caroline Spelman: One advantage of the size of the Anglican communion is that its reach is across all continents, and the persecution of Christians in all continents is a matter of great concern to the Church of England, as part of the Anglican communion. I will certainly look more closely into what is happening in the Philippines, and I thank the hon. Lady for that suggestion.

Desmond Swayne: I attempted to restrict the scope of a question to the holy lands and was summoned to the Table Office to change the offending words. It is not persecution, but does my right hon. Friend resent that secular agenda as much as I do?

Caroline Spelman: That is almost a question for the Chair, rather than the Second Church Estates Commissioner. I am concerned about religious literacy and understanding better the Holy Land. I was fortunate to be able to make a visit with five Members of Parliament, led by the Speaker’s Chaplain, Rose, to the Holy Land for the first time, to see for myself the plight of Christians there and the complexity of the issues in the Holy Land. I do not think we should baulk at calling it the Holy Land, for many of the world’s faith regard it as such.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: What a delicious choice—I call Jim Shannon.

Jim Shannon: Can the right hon. Lady outline whether she has had any discussions with the Home Office, to request that Asia Bibi and her family are offered asylum in the United Kingdom, and the outcome of those discussions?

Caroline Spelman: I can give the hon. Gentleman reassurance, and I sympathise with his concern for Asia Bibi. The information we have is that we need to be extremely careful that we do not exacerbate risks to Asia Bibi and her family. The Prime Minister answered a question during PMQs about what the Foreign Office is doing and confirmed that the UK is in conversations with other Governments, including the Government of Pakistan, on how to make Asia and her family safe.

David Drew: We had an excellent debate this week on Nigeria, initiated by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Will the right hon. Lady urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to visit another bedevilled part of the world, South Sudan? Although it is a Christian country, many Christians are being persecuted there.

Caroline Spelman: The Archbishop of Canterbury is very alive to the situation in South Sudan. Every well-read Christian Member of Parliament surely must be. In my tenure as shadow International Development Secretary, I went to southern Sudan, and it is probably one of the most distressing places I have ever visited. The women there told me they had very little confidence of peace being secured, because they fear their men just like to fight.

Dean of Christ Church, Oxford

John Howell: What support the Church of England is providing to the Dean of Christ Church cathedral Oxford in the case brought against him by Christ Church college.

Caroline Spelman: At this stage, there is little more that I can add to the written answer that I gave my hon. Friend on Monday. A formal tribunal process is under way, following the statutes of Christ Church, and that will enable the complaint made against the dean to be properly investigated.

John Howell: I have spoken to the Bishop of Oxford, and I am a little more reassured about the pastoral care that is being made available for the dean, but this raises the important question of why an Anglican cathedral is so much in the pocket of an Oxford college.

Caroline Spelman: I can reassure the House that the Bishop of Oxford is giving pastoral support to the Dean, and I know that he went out of his way to speak to my hon. Friend. This is a very unusual case in the Church of England—the dean of a cathedral is at the same time the master of a college—but I must underline that the complaint against the Dean is an internal matter for the college, and neither the Church Commissioners nor the wider Church of England has any role in that process.

Christmas

Diana R. Johnson: What steps the Church of England is taking to promote the message of Christmas.

Caroline Spelman: I am so glad the hon. Lady has asked that question, as this Sunday is the first Sunday in Advent. We all look forward to Christmas. The Church of England reached over 6.8 million people with last year’s Advent and Christmas campaign. This year, the Church has launched a Follow the Star campaign. Details of that can be found on the Church website, or indeed in hard copies made available through Church House Publishing.

Diana R. Johnson: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply, and I endorse the importance of Follow the Star to advertise services and signpost the campaign that the Church is running. I say to the right hon. Lady, however, that universal credit is being rolled out in my constituency just before Christmas. I am really concerned about the rising number of people attending the food bank, and I am also concerned about rising levels of homelessness and loneliness in the community. Does she think the Church of England could do more to take practical steps to convey the Christmas message in our communities?

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Lady enables me to give the answer I so much wanted to give to Question 9, which had to be withdrawn at short notice. The Church has surveyed the social action projects in its 16,000 parishes, and 33,000 social action projects are under way in precisely the kind of areas the hon. Lady mentions—food banks, night shelters for the homeless and debt counselling. Indeed, this is living out the message of Christmas to the needy.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: The message of Christmas is one of renewal and hope. Will my right hon. Friend bring a message of hope to people with autism in prison? It is essential that those who minister to them understand the condition. In the new year, will she look at ensuring that all prison chaplains are trained in autism? In that way, the Christmas message could be extended into 2019.

Caroline Spelman: The message is that Christmas is for all, including inmates in prison. My right hon. Friend has campaigned so hard for those with autism. Our chaplains are given guidance on helping prison inmates with autism.
I must finish with a heart-warming story for the House, which perhaps those who read The Guardian will have spotted. The Dean of Salisbury cathedral provided stonemasons to a local prison who trained the inmates in how to fashion their own war memorial, and he inaugurated it in time for the Armistice. I just want to reassure the House that, for practical reasons, the number of chisels was counted on the way in and on the way out.

Martin Vickers: Many children will be in church over the Christmas period, particularly at events such as Christingle services. Does my right  hon. Friend agree that this is a great opportunity for the Church to spread the message to our young people in the hope that they will retain that message throughout their lives?

Caroline Spelman: The Church of England has seen increasing attendance at its church services. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that crib services and Christingle services are very important for small people.
I would like to encourage you, Mr Speaker, to have a look at the Follow the Star campaign. It is different for a change: it does not start on the first day of Advent, but covers the 12 days of Christmas. When you and I have finished washing up after our Christmas lunches, we might sit down and reflect on the true meaning of Christmas and make sure that our children do get it.

John Bercow: I shall always profit from the right hon. Lady’s counsels, and I solemnly commit to take that advice on Christmas day.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice

Keir Starmer: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the publication of the Attorney General’s legal advice on the proposed withdrawal agreement.

Robert Buckland: The Government recognise the legitimate desire of Members on all sides of the House to understand the withdrawal agreement and its legal effect. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirmed to the House on Tuesday 13 November that the Government will publish a full reasoned statement to set out their position on the legal effect of the withdrawal agreement. That is in addition to the material that the Government have already published, including, for example, a detailed explainer of the withdrawal agreement and a technical explanatory note on the Northern Ireland protocol. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General will also make a statement to the House on Monday 3 December—the next sitting day—about the legal effect of the agreement, and he will answer questions from Members, I am sure in the fullest possible way.

Keir Starmer: Not good enough.
Mr Speaker, nobody who was present in the debate on 13 November, including the Solicitor General, could be in any doubt about what the House was asking for. During that debate I stated that
“the motion requires the publication of the final and full advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the terms of any withdrawal agreement. This must be made available to all MPs. It is to be published after any withdrawal agreement is reached with the EU, but in good time to allow proper consideration before MPs are asked to vote on the deal.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 235.]
The motion was passed unanimously on those terms, and when it was passed, I made it clear that those were its terms.
It was perfectly clear to Ministers, including the Solicitor General who spoke at the end of the debate, that the House was not asking for a position paper or a summary of the Attorney General’s advice. That was the offer made from the Dispatch Box during the debate, and it was roundly rejected, as the Solicitor General knows full well. The binding motion that was passed was for nothing less than for the full and final legal advice provided by the Attorney General. It is therefore wholly unacceptable, and frankly shows contempt for this House, for Ministers, including the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box yesterday, now to pretend that the House was asking only for partial or qualified legal advice. If the Government are not willing to comply with the order of the House, why did they and the Solicitor General not vote against the motion?
In 12 days’ time, this House will have to take the most important decision it has taken for a generation, and MPs are entitled to know the full legal consequences of the deal that the Prime Minister is asking them to support. That is why the order was made, and why it must be complied with. Throughout the Brexit process, the Government have repeatedly tried to sideline and  push Parliament away. If they now intend to ignore Parliament altogether, they will get into very deep water indeed. I urge the Solicitor General to think again and to comply with the order of the House.

Robert Buckland: With the greatest respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, his request is wholly premature—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Everybody will have a chance to contribute on this most important and solemn of matters, but just as the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) was heard in relative quiet, so must similar courtesy be extended to the Solicitor General. Everybody will get a chance to put his or her point of view—of that there need be  no doubt.

Robert Buckland: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Attorney General will come to the House on the next sitting day, and he will make a full statement and answer questions from hon. Members across the House. It might then be for the House to judge whether the Government have discharged their obligations consistent with the Humble Address, but not before.

Desmond Swayne: Who needs legal advice to know a trap when they see one?

Robert Buckland: My right hon. Friend makes the important point that, ultimately, the decision for this House and the motions on which it will vote are political matters, and to try to dress them up in legalese and as legal matters does not help anyone.

Peter Grant: I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) on securing this urgent question. A dangerous pattern is developing here. First, the Government tried to avoid their obligations under a previous Humble Address to release their impact assessments, and on two instances, senior Conservative ex-Ministers were given guarantees by Ministers at the Dispatch Box, which they then claimed publicly had been broken. Now we see the Government trying to wriggle out of yet another binding decision of this House.
Mr Speaker, this is not the time or the place to re-run the discussion about whether it was a good idea for that motion on an Humble Address to have been passed. How ironic that the Government want to re-run a debate on something that has already been voted on—just think about that! This is not the time to discuss its merits. As has been said, if the Government did not want to comply with the instruction, they should have instructed their MPs to vote against it. The reason they did not was that they knew they would have lost the vote.
Does the Solicitor General accept the ruling of the Chair that this decision is binding on the Government? If so, when do the Government intend to comply with the instruction they have had from representatives of the sovereign citizens of these islands?

Robert Buckland: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the answer I gave. The Attorney General will be here on the next sitting day.  He will make a statement and answer questions. Then the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members can form a judgment on whether the motion that was carried by this House has been satisfied. My argument is that the Attorney General will meet the spirit and intention of the motion passed, but preserve the important constitutional convention relating to Law Officers’ advice.

Bob Neill: The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the shadow Secretary of State, said during his speech:
“I wanted the Government to see the good sense in putting the legal position before the House, for all the exceptional reasons that have been set out”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 194.]
Accepting that, is that not precisely what the Attorney General intends to do and will be able to do on Monday?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, is absolutely right. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is more familiar than most with the position of the Law Officers and their role within the constitution. I would have expected him to do better.

Tom Brake: The Solicitor General should be aware that I, and probably others in this House, have written to Mr Speaker asking whether this is a matter of contempt. I suspect we may find it easier to get 48 letters than others have found. Can the Solicitor General confirm whether the Government will fight any contempt proceedings? Has he identified who in the Government would be the subject of contempt proceedings? Does he agree that this latest snub to Parliament leaves Members of Parliament with a sneaking suspicion that when it comes to the vote on 11 December and any votes that come after, the Government may decide to play fast and loose with what is the normal procedure in this place?

Robert Buckland: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to speculate about matters that might not arise. There is no snub to Parliament. It is a wholly confected controversy that actually detracts from the real issues we should be debating and will be looking at next week.

Simon Hoare: While the Opposition may wish to play fast and loose with the national interest, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be wholly irresponsible to publish material which could or would damage the national interest?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the national interest. It is rare for a Law Officer, in this case the Attorney General, to come to the House and make a statement of this nature. We accept that these are exceptionally important, unusual and unprecedented times. That is why he is doing it. Members will have the chance to grill him when he comes.

Nigel Dodds: The Solicitor General is repeating the offer that was made during the debate on 13 November and repeating what the  Prime Minister said yesterday, but that was not accepted by the House. The House unanimously adopted a binding resolution in the terms that the Opposition spokesperson has outlined, so why does the Solicitor General not listen and the Government start listening? This has been the problem all along. What is it that they have to hide?

Robert Buckland: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that when the Attorney General comes here on Monday, he will be able to ask him questions and make sure he is properly examined on these issues? He will have that opportunity. This is not an instance where the Government seek to delay or hide; this is all about providing information at the right time ahead of the important debate that I know he will be playing an important part in.

Maggie Throup: Will my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is the role of the Government always to put the national interest at the heart of any decision?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend makes a simple but important point. If we start trying to subdivide the role of the Law Officers and create a rift in collective decision making, where will democratically accountable government end up?

George Howarth: In my experience, when someone smells a rat, it is usually a good idea to set a trap. The Solicitor General will be aware that the Prime Minister wants everybody in the House to make a sensible decision based on all the information available to us. Should we not, then, have the fullest possible legal advice in as timely a manner as possible if we are to arrive at a sensible decision?

Robert Buckland: I take the right hon. Gentleman’s question with the seriousness it deserves. That is why the Attorney General is coming here on the next sitting day before we start the five-day debate—so that hon. Members have a chance not just to question him but to digest what he says, come to a judgment and make points appropriately, either in the debate or in other proceedings that might follow.

Victoria Prentis: I must confess that I remain as confused as I was on 13 November about precisely what is being requested. What differences are there between the position now and the position the Government were in when advice was provided concerning Iraq?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend, who is a former Government lawyer, will recall that the circumstances of the publication of the Iraq advice were dramatically different from the current circumstances. In brief, extracts from the then Attorney General’s advice were leaked to the press during the 2005 election campaign, and in those exceptional circumstances, the then Labour Government took a collective decision that the Attorney General should publish the full text. That is the only time it has happened. It was an exceptional case that I do not think sets a precedent here.

Jim Shannon: Can the Solicitor General outline the legal implications of Northern Ireland entering into a customs union—including, to all intents  and purposes, a united Ireland—with no voice or vote for an indefinite period and without the mechanism of a border poll, as called for in the Belfast agreement?

Robert Buckland: I am happy to inform the hon. Gentleman that he can put that precise question to my right hon. and learned Friend on the next sitting day. If he does, I am sure he will get a full answer.

Vicky Ford: I, too, listened to the debate that afternoon and raised a number of concerns about the motion. My memory is that the shadow Secretary of State asked for full advice on the final deal and not all the advice given during the negotiations and that he actually corrected the motion from the Dispatch Box four times before it was voted on, as I pointed out in an intervention. Does the Solicitor General agree that the motion was incredibly unclear and inconsistent?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend’s recollection is accurate, although to be fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he sought to clarify or narrow the terms of reference of his application. I simply say to her what I said in that debate, which is that the Government will provide a full and clear legal position to the House and that it will then be a matter for the House to judge whether that is sufficient.

Helen Goodman: If the Government knew they would take the position of not providing the full legal advice—and the Minister wound up that debate on 13 November—why did they not vote against the motion? [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. We cannot have people chuntering from a sedentary position, particularly when they have already spoken. We have heard the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford); we know what she wanted to say and we are most grateful to her for that. We do not need sedentary chuntering. It is not helpful and it is unseemly—stop it.

Robert Buckland: I am not going to speculate about votes that were held or not held. I know what the position of the House is. We are seeking to satisfy that through the appearance of the Attorney General on Monday.

Will Quince: I welcome the news that the Attorney General will be coming before the House on Monday, but does my hon. and learned Friend share my concern about the precedent that this may set for publishing legal advice? Where would that leave legal privilege, the cornerstone of our legal justice system?

Robert Buckland: I do not intend to repeat the remarks that I made in the debate, but as I said, there are good reasons why there is a convention for Law Officers. It is not just for the convenience of lawyers; it is for the rule of law to stay at the heart of collective Cabinet decision making. I would have thought that everybody in this House would want that.

Thangam Debbonaire: Let me refresh the memories of Government Members, who seem to have forgotten the following words:
“any legal advice in full, including that provided by the Attorney General, on the proposed withdrawal agreement”.
My constituents are entitled to have the will of the House met so that I can read those documents. What on earth has the Solicitor General got against those words and my constituents knowing that I am doing my job?

Robert Buckland: I think the hon. Lady was reading out the words of the motion, which were not the words adopted by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). He confined himself to a particular document that he wanted to see. Those are the terms of reference that he sought, and it does nobody any good to try to go back on what he said. A statement on the Government’s legal position will be published on Monday, so it will not just be the Attorney General’s words given here orally. Right hon. and hon. Members will have something in writing as well.

Neil O'Brien: Does the Solicitor General agree that if Members have important questions about the Government’s legal advice or the legal position, they will be able to find out the answers to those questions by asking the source of the Government’s legal advice—the Attorney General—in this House? Does he further agree that this is about a very important constitutional principle? If all 6,500 pieces of legal advice are published, all official advice, not just legal, will start to be published and we will have a situation in which candid advice will no longer be given. It will not be written down and, whoever is in government, we will not have proper functioning of Government.

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that if Law Officers, and indeed civil servants, cannot provide candid advice in an unencumbered way, the quality of decision making will deteriorate, as will its transparency. That is deleterious to good government.

Carol Monaghan: But this is not normal government. This is an irrevocable vote, so given the importance of that vote, does the Solicitor General not agree that MPs are entitled to the full truth on behalf of the people they represent?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady will see on Monday a document setting out the Government’s legal position. She will be able to question the senior Law Officer about that and then, in the debate, she will be able to make further points if she views the information that she has received as somehow insufficient. Knowing my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he will dilate at length if he is asked to.

Eddie Hughes: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that if the information given by a lawyer to a client is to be made public in future, that information is likely to be much more caveated and cautious, and therefore less useful?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is right—the information becomes useless, actually, if that is the case. There are good reasons why privilege exists, but over and above that, there are constitutional reasons why the Law Officers’ permission has to be sought if, first, the  fact that advice might or might not have been given is to be disclosed, and secondly, the content of any such advice is to be disclosed.

Jeff Smith: The Government will have discharged their duty to the House not when the Attorney General makes his statement, but when they publish the full and final legal advice that the House has requested and voted for. Is that not what he should do on Monday?

Robert Buckland: I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the document that is published, to hear the Attorney General and to come to any view that he may think is appropriate after that.

Kevin Foster: I found some of the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) surprising, to say the least, given his former role as Director of Public Prosecutions. Does the Solicitor General share my concern at the precedent that the Government might be setting, by releasing legal advice in this instance, for the advice given by previous Directors of Public Prosecutions?

Robert Buckland: I am here to answer questions on behalf of the Law Officers. Although I superintend the Crown Prosecution Service, it is an independent body, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the content of any advice that it may give.

Paul Sweeney: Given that the Government have already ridden roughshod over the Sewel convention in respect of the devolution settlement, what faith can we have that they will uphold its integrity on this occasion?

Robert Buckland: I am tempted to get into a debate with the hon. Gentleman about the first part of his question, which I am afraid is just wrong, but we are not riding roughshod over anyone. I have already explained what we are going to do: on the next sitting day, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General will be here to answer questions.

Matt Warman: It is easy and cheap populism to make the demands that we have heard today, but is the reality that this would undermine the ability of the Solicitor General and the Attorney General to do their job now, and the ability of all their successors to serve future Governments as well?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend has put it eloquently. Populism is no substitute for responsible government or responsible opposition.

Brendan O'Hara: I do not see how a unanimous vote in the House could ever be seen as cheap populism. The House said unambiguously that it wanted the Attorney General’s legal advice to be published in full. Given that the withdrawal agreement is looking increasingly like a burst ball, does the Solicitor General not think that ignoring the will of Parliament  and hiding behind the “national interest” excuse just adds to the public perception that this is a Government descending into chaos?

Robert Buckland: Some of us actually believe in talking up our country, rather than talking it down. I am fed up with the attitude of some Members who seem to revel in the idea that the House wants to connive in chaos, as opposed to stepping up to the plate and playing its responsible democratic role. The public are looking to us to make an important decision in two weeks’ time; let us show them that we are worthy of it.

Nigel Huddleston: It is absolutely right that we hold the Government to account. We are doing that now, and we will do it again on Monday with the Attorney General. However, does the Solicitor General share my unease about the undermining of core principles that are accepted by the whole country, such as client confidentiality?

Robert Buckland: It is very easy, in the eye of a storm, to cast caution to the winds and throw away sensible and well worked out convention. This is not the time for us to do that.

Chris Matheson: May I express my sympathy for the Solicitor General, who has been sent out today to defend the indefensible and take one for the team? May I also say, however, that responsible government means respecting the will of the House? How on earth can the Government ask the House to support the withdrawal agreement if at the same time they show contempt for a previous major decision that the House has made?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man and an honourable Member. I ask him to listen carefully to the Attorney General, to read the documents—as I know he will—and then to reach a judgment after the next sitting day, when he will hear in full the legal basis for the Government’s decision.

Bill Grant: We know that the good negotiator never shows his hand. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it would not be appropriate to reveal the Government’s legal advice while we are, in essence, still at the negotiating table, securing and protecting the national interest?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is right. We are in a continuing negotiation, and that is why the national interest really is at the heart of this.

Kevin Brennan: The Solicitor General has a wonderful Welsh gift for words, but may I remind him of what Disraeli once said?
“A majority is always better than the best repartee.”
There was a majority—in fact, a unanimous vote in the House—in favour of a motion for a return, which is not a request for a statement but a request for information to be published with the protection of parliamentary privilege. It is the duty of the Government to publish that information following the decision of the House, but if they still do not want to do that, the Solicitor General has already said that they could do it voluntarily.  The full legal advice will come out eventually, and history will not look kindly on the Government, or on any members of the Government, if they have kept from the House relevant information within that legal advice.

Robert Buckland: The hon. Gentleman is a compatriot of mine and is no stranger to the wizardry of rhetoric. He reminds me of Disraeli’s comment on Gladstone that at times he might be inebriated by the intoxication of his own verbosity— but not today. I take his point, but I will say this to him: I would be failing in my duty if I did not defend robustly the Law Officers convention. That is what I am doing today, and that is what I must continue to do.

John Bercow: The correct reference is
“inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity”,
but what I would say is that the Solicitor General is no more in a position to level that charge at the hon. Gentleman than I would be.

Paul Masterton: I am very pleased that the Attorney General is coming before the House on Monday, but while I have the utmost respect for him, ultimately his advice is just that: advice. Is not the most important thing what the Government’s interpretation and position is and what the Government are going to do?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is right to remind this House—[Interruption.] I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) is with us. Perhaps I will say no more about—

John Bercow: Order. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings thinks that the Solicitor General’s historical recollection is correct and that mine is at fault. He might be right, but in the end it is a fairly minor point in the great scheme of things.

Robert Buckland: Hansard will come to our rescue, I have no doubt, Mr Speaker.
Going back to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), in the end this is a policy decision made by the Government after looking at a range of options. This is a matter of politics, and to try and dress it up in a way that would be unhelpful, inappropriate and, frankly, misleading to the public is not how we should conduct ourselves.

Clive Efford: The Solicitor General has been pugnacious in his responses this morning, and it makes me wonder what he has to hide. We are about to make one of the momentous decisions Parliament has ever had to make on behalf of our country; surely we should have time to consider over the weekend the legal advice that the Government got?

Robert Buckland: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when he hears the Attorney General and reads the documents on the next sitting day, he will have ample time between then and the vote, which will not be until 11 December, to assess the information, ask more questions about it, probe the Government and come to an informed view. That is what I want him and all hon. Members to have, and that is what they are going to get.

Matthew Offord: I have the utmost respect for the Attorney General, but does the Solicitor General agree that if we went to Chancery Lane we could get another opinion that would completely contradict his own remarks?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend knows that the documentation—the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship document—is all out there in the ether for the public and for informed and, shall I say, less well informed commentators to make observations about. There is a plethora of opinion, some of it legal, out there, and my hon. Friend makes that point very well.

Diana R. Johnson: The Solicitor General referred in an earlier answer to the legal advice that was published on the Iraq war, and he said that was exceptional. I think we are currently in more exceptional times than ever before, and publishing the full legal advice for all Members of this House to see before they cast their vote on a decision that is going to affect generations to come is absolutely vital.

Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady makes a proper point, but there is another important distinction to be drawn between today’s scenario and the Iraq war. With regard to the Iraq war, a decision was made by Government as to whether or not to use armed force in another country. The legality or otherwise of that decision was clearly a material and key issue as to whether or not an action should be taken. This is now a different set of circumstances: a Government taking a policy decision based on a range of outcomes, with potential risks and outcomes that would result. It is wholly different. I do not think, with respect to the hon. Lady, that the precedent of Iraq is appropriate.

Fiona Bruce: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Is not maintaining the principle of legal privilege also essential to maintaining the confidence of every citizen in this country who seeks advice from a lawyer that they can expect the justice for which this country is globally renowned?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend, as a lawyer, knows that all too well. I have already explained the double importance of professional privilege and the constitutional centrality of the Law Officers’ convention.

Chi Onwurah: This is commonly described as the most important decision that this House has made since the second world war. The Government refuse to publish the legal advice despite Parliament agreeing that they should do so, and they refuse to publish the economic analysis despite previously agreeing to do so. This is a blindfold Brexit with no clarity for our economy, our agriculture or our working rights. Does the Minister seriously expect us to vote for it blindfold?

Robert Buckland: I can assure the hon. Lady that she will not be voting for it blindfold. Whatever her final decision might be, she will be in a position, come the vote, to have heard the Attorney General, to have   read the Government’s position and to fully understand and appreciate the issues at stake. I know that she will do all that and make her decision.

Thomas Tugendhat: Despite the Welsh origins of the Solicitor General, does he agree that there is no wizardry in legal advice, that it is simply the accumulation of the collected knowledge of our culture, history and agreed norms, and that in many ways we can read all that in the press that we are seeing every day? We may seek legal advice in this place, but I have been given tons for free by every lawyer in the country, as far as I can tell. Does he therefore agree that the Attorney General’s advice is relevant, but not essential?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend puts the context of all this admirably well.

Alan Brown: Instead of expressing faux outrage from the Dispatch Box, the Solicitor General could have shown some backbone and voted against the motion. We have had more than two years of the UK Government telling us that no deal is better than a bad deal, but now suddenly the deal that is on the table is the only show in town and we are being told that no deal would be an unmitigated disaster. Given the Government’s ineptitude over this entire process, how are we supposed to believe their position statement on impartial legal advice?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Gentleman talks about backbone. It is time for him and his colleagues to show some backbone and to back a deal that serves the interests of Scotland, Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in a way that could not be achieved by any other Prime Minister.

Bob Blackman: For the avoidance of doubt, will my hon. and learned Friend advise the House on what the role of the Attorney General is in advising the Government and this House?

Robert Buckland: As I think most hon. and right hon. Members know, the role of the Attorney General is to be the Government’s chief legal adviser. He has a role in advising the Cabinet. He is not a member of the Cabinet but he attends Cabinet. The advice that might or might not be given can assist in collective Cabinet decision making. He is the lawyer, and his client is the Government. That lawyer-client relationship allows for   the lawyer to provide impartial and proper legal advice, unencumbered by political considerations. That is why the convention exists. That is why it must be maintained.

Bill Cash: The Solicitor General was in post at the time and will know the answer to this question. Did the Prime Minister ask the opinion of the Attorney General, as laid down under the clear requirements of the ministerial code, which insists that, in respect of critical legal considerations, all Ministers must ask the opinion of the Attorney General “in good time” before the considerations are implemented by the Cabinet? I ask that both in respect of the Chequers proposals on 6 July, when the Cabinet was clearly bounced, and in respect of the incompatibility of the withdrawal agreement with the withdrawal Act and the express repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, before the signature of the withdrawal agreement over the weekend?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend will know the answer that I must give, which is that the convention applies. I can neither confirm nor deny the position with regard to the Attorney General as to the issue that he raises.

Philip Hollobone: I hope that the Solicitor General is correct in his interpretation of the Humble Address motion and the Government’s response to it, but if he is wrong, the House might well bring proceedings of contempt against the Government, which is the most serious charge that the House can bring. When was the last time that a Government were held to be in contempt of the House of Commons?

Robert Buckland: I am not going to start speculating in reply to my hon. Friend’s question. It would not be right of me; this is a matter for Parliament. I would like to think that people understand that my respect and support for this place know no equal.

Christopher Chope: Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that, as every lawyer knows, advice depends on the quality of the questions sought? Can he therefore assure us that he or our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General will set out on Monday all the questions in respect of which advice has been given to the Government, so that we can be sure that all the right questions have been asked?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend knows our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and I can assure him that in response to any question  he asks, he will get the most comprehensive of answers, for free.

Business of the House

Valerie Vaz: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

Andrea Leadsom: The business for next week will be:
Monday 3 December—Second Reading of the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 4 December—Proceedings on a business motion relating to section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 followed by debate on section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (day 1).
Wednesday 5 December—Continuation of debate on section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (day 2).
Thursday 6 December—Continuation of debate on section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (day 3).
Friday 7 December—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
Monday 10 December—Continuation of debate on section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (day 4).
Tuesday 11 December—Conclusion of debate on section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (day 5).
Wednesday 12 December—Consideration of Lords amendments.
Thursday 13 December—General debate on public health model to reduce youth violence.
Friday 14 December—The House will not be sitting.
Colleagues will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Easter recess at the close of business on Thursday 4 April 2019 and return on Tuesday 23 April 2019.
Small Business Saturday reaches millions of customers and businesses every year. I encourage everyone out and about doing their Christmas shopping this weekend to support their local high streets, which do so much to keep our communities thriving. Also, Saturday is World AIDS Day. Over 100,000 people are living with HIV in the UK alone, and globally there are nearly 37 million people who have the virus. This is an opportunity for people worldwide to unite in the fight against HIV. Finally, may I wish everyone, in particular all our colleagues north of the border, a very happy St Andrew’s Day for tomorrow?

Valerie Vaz: May I thank the Leader of the House and say “Hallelujah”? We are rising on my niece Anjali’s birthday, so I will not forget that.
The Leader of the House has helpfully set out the timetable for the debate in the coming weeks—it is the first time that we have had two weeks for some time—but what chaos in the run-up to the debate. Let us start with the debate. After struggling to clarify what will happen on the business motion, could the Leader of the House finally agree that the Government have now conceded the recommendation in the Procedure Committee’s report  that the Government take the amendments first before the Government’s main motion? We have now heard from the Solicitor General, who is very excellent in his role, about the legal advice, but why does it take an urgent question to fulfil the will of Parliament? This is not about the legal advice on an everyday matter; it is of major constitutional significance to our future. The House has asked for the legal advice that was given to the Government. The Government have taken the legal advice and now they are saying that they will formulate that, along with every other advice, and give us the Government’s legal position. That is not what was asked for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) mentioned the motion and I will read it out again:
“that the following papers be laid before Parliament: any legal advice in full, including that provided by the Attorney General, on the proposed withdrawal agreement”.
That is very narrow. It is not about everything that the Government need to do. So in my view, the Government are not interpreting the Humble Address as passed by the House. A position statement can exclude that part of the advice that states that the Government may or may not be acting appropriately, or the consequences of the way in which the Government act. We need clarity and transparency. This is in the national interest. We govern in the people’s name, not in our own name.
And there is no economic analysis on what we are going to vote for. There seems to be an economic analysis on every other model, except the ones on the deal. If the Government are prepared to do that, which shows that we will be in a worse position unless we stay in the EU, the Government should publish the legal advice in full. Could the Leader of the House go back to the Cabinet and confirm today that, as a member of the Privy Council, she will follow the directions of Her Majesty and provide the legal advice, as requested? Otherwise the Government, like Zuckerberg, will just be treating Parliament with contempt. That is what is going to happen.
I turn the Leader of the House’s attention to the statutory instruments. According to the Government’s own deadline, as set out in the 25 October letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)—I do not think he is in the Chamber—they have until tomorrow to lay almost 50% of the Brexit SIs that they said they would lay in November. The Government have so far laid only 73 Brexit SIs in November, which is well below the 150 to 200 they said they would lay this month. We have had 55% of the time and only 22% of the SIs have been laid. Can the Leader of the House please say whether the Government will be on track to meet their own target?
In her statement on Monday, the Prime Minister said of her deal:
“It takes back control of our borders, and ends the free movement of people”.—[Official Report, 26 November 2018; Vol. 650, c. 23.]
She said that right at the start, as one of the most important parts of the deal, yet can the Leader of the House say when the immigration White Paper will be published? The Prime Minister was asked and she could not respond. All we have had so far is the Migration Advisory Committee’s report.
The Prime Minister also said that she has a shopping list that is longer than the Opposition’s six tests, but she failed to say that a growing number of British citizens are taking their shopping list to food banks. The Opposition have a shopping list of our own for how we want to transform society when we are in government, and ending child poverty is at the top. I hope that the Leader of the House will remind the Prime Minister that the Leader of the Opposition has written to her about the report of the United Nations representative, Professor Alston, on his visit to the UK. I know the Leader of the House will be interested, because Professor Alston mentioned Northamptonshire in his report. He described the Government’s approach to social security as “punitive” and “mean-spirited” and he highlighted the hardships facing disabled people. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) wanted to remind us that yesterday was the United Nations International Day of Disabled Persons.
Welfare has been cut since 2010 and £28 billion has been cut from social security for disabled people. Disabled student’s allowance has helped many students find their talent—rather than restricting it as the Government have done. The Government are asking students to stump up £200 before they even get DSA. When will the Government publish the evaluation of the impact of recent changes to DSA? It was due to report in late summer. The Leader of the House is a fan of “Game of Thrones.” Now that winter is coming, can we have that evaluation report?
Last week I mentioned Harry Leslie Smith, who was not well. He has since died, and so has Baroness Trumpington. They were the world’s oldest rebels. Let us hear what Harry Leslie Smith said:
“We have become enamoured by the escapism populist politics provides, where we can fit the blame of our woes on migrants or big institutions”.
He also said:
“We have resisted the darkness that comes to societies that are decayed by their contempt of democracy”,
whether outside or in this House. I want to mention those who have shone a light into the darkness, following Harry Leslie Smith, particularly those who won at the Political Studies Association awards on Tuesday: Amelia Gentleman, who shone the light in her work on Windrush; Carole Cadwalladr, who has shone the light into the darkness of our democracy; my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who was politician of the year; and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who was parliamentarian of the year. This House applauds and salutes them.

Andrea Leadsom: I am glad the hon. Lady is pleased that she gets to spend her niece’s birthday with her when the House rises for Easter—that is excellent news. I am also delighted to join her in congratulating all those who won awards for their contribution to making our society a better place and in commemorating Harry Leslie Smith and Baroness Trumpington, both of whom made such a big impact in their contributions to society.
The hon. Lady asked about the recommendations of the Procedure Committee and whether the proposed business motion on the meaningful vote addresses them.  I can say that, yes, that is the case, in so far as time constraints and practicalities allow in both Houses. The Procedure Committee recommended that amendments should be taken before the main motion is considered and that there should be a minimum of five full days for debate, both of which are happening. The House should be pleased about that.
On the Humble Address, I want to reiterate that we absolutely recognise that there is a legitimate desire in Parliament, from Members in all parts, to understand the legal implications of the deal once it is finalised. The Government will make information available to all Members of the House; there will be a full reasoned position statement laying out the Government’s legal position on the withdrawal agreement. Equally, the hon. Lady will know, as a lawyer herself, that it is a fundamental and long-standing principle of our system of government that Law Officers’ advice is not published without their consent.
The hon. Lady asked about economic analysis on the deal. I am not entirely sure, but she seems to be suggesting that the economic analysis includes everything other than the deal that is on the table. That is not the case; the withdrawal agreement and political declaration economic analysis is, in fact, included in the analysis that has been put out by the Treasury. She asked about statutory instruments. She is right to say that as of 27 November, 185 Brexit SIs have been laid so far, with 79 so far in November. We expect a total of 120 to 130 by the end of this month. She is right to point out that that is a bit below the 150 to 200 figure outlined by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), in his letter to the sifting Committee. However, as I have tried to make clear at all times, we are getting a firm grip on secondary legislation, and I remain confident that we will get all of the secondary legislation that we need to do through in time for departure date. The number of SIs is below what we originally thought; we now think the total number could be up to 700, but I am confident we will remain in a good place to get all of that passed in time.
The hon. Lady made mention of the Prime Minister’s shopping list. No doubt the Prime Minister is very busy at the moment and is paring her grocery shopping back to the bare limit, but the hon. Lady makes an important point about food banks. Everyone in this House pays tribute to those who contribute to the efforts of civic society to contribute to the food poor. People use food banks for many and varied reasons, and the Government are constantly reviewing research carried out by organisations, including great organisations such as the Trussell Trust, to add to our understanding of food bank use. However, I must point out to her that, in terms of where our society is, since 2010 there are 1 million fewer people in absolute poverty—it is at a record low; there are 300,000 fewer children in absolutely poverty, which is another record low; and there are 500,000 fewer working-age adults in absolute poverty, which is a record low. Those are things we can be proud of. This is in addition to the amazing performance of our economy, with more than 3 million more jobs since 2010. That means more people with the security of a pay packet able to support their own family and an improving standard of living.

Sir David Amess: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on relations between the Maldives and the United Kingdom? Following the defeat of President Gayoom in 2008, there have been endless arguments about the legitimacy of succeeding Presidents. Now that President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih has been elected emphatically, I hope that the Maldives will rejoin the Commonwealth and that we can restore full diplomatic relations with the country.

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. We were very pleased that our non-resident ambassador to the Maldives represented the UK at  the presidential oath-of-office ceremony in Malé on 17 November. We certainly welcomed President Solih’s announcement that his Government would commence steps to rejoin the Commonwealth. We also welcome his Government’s announcement on the freeing of political prisoners and launching of investigations into corruption, fraud and money laundering. Under previous regimes, democratic freedoms were restricted, but we stand ready to work with the new Administration to improve on the situation.

Pete Wishart: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. Given that it is St Andrew’s Day tomorrow, I say to you, Mr Speaker: lang may yer lum reek.
It is coming at last, a bit like Christmas without Santa or the festivities, and with everybody just that bit poorer: yes, Brexit vote day is almost here, with a generous five days to debate the so-called meaningful vote on the Government’s Brexit deal, which has about as much chance of getting through as I have of becoming Lord Speaker or a Church of England bishop. It is already a diseased deal. Like the great Norwegian blue parrot, this is a deal that will not even be pining for the Norwegian fjords. It will not even be pining for a Norway-plus deal. This deal, like that great comic parrot of yore, has just about squawked its last and is about to go and meet its maker.
The only question is how we do all this. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her response about how the votes are going to progress: the process will follow the Procedure Committee’s recommendation that amendments are taken first. Will she confirm that it will not be a binary choice between the devil and the deep blue sea, and that an amended motion, if that is what the House wants, will be put to the House on 11 December? We need to know exactly what is going to be in line before we start the debate next week.
It now looks likely that the European Court of Justice—an institution so beloved of many of my Brexiter friends on the Government Benches—will judge that the UK and the Government can unilaterally halt article 50. Are we now, then, beginning to get to the stage at which we can start to abandon this madness and retain the living standards that we all enjoy and the access that we have to our friends in Europe?
Lastly, the Prime Minister is trailing round the country trying to drum up support for her already doomed deal. Yesterday, she was in Scotland, drumming up opposition to her deal: opposition to it in Scotland now stands at  almost 70%. Scotland has been ignored and disrespected for the two long years of this process, and the Government have not even started to address our concerns. In the next few days, we will consider this almost pointless debate about a meaningless vote for which the conclusion has already been reached. We on the Scottish National party Benches will never support any arrangement that makes our country poorer.

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman alludes to that parrot, which he will remember had snuffed it. This parrot is the only one in the aviary, so it is worth serious consideration.
He says that there is no support for the deal in Scotland, so what about Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, who says:
“The declaration gives the UK the power to assert its position as an independent Coastal State with full, unfettered sovereignty over our waters and natural resources”?
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not care too much about Scottish fishing.
How about the Scotch Whisky Association chief executive Karen Betts, who says:
“The provisions set out in the Withdrawal Agreement provide us with a credible foundation on which to build in the next phase of the negotiations, during which a number of critical issues remain to be resolved”?
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not care about Scottish whisky.
How about Liz Cameron, chief executive of Scottish Chambers of Commerce, who says:
“After two and a half years, business communities across Scotland and the UK, will welcome the Cabinet-backed draft Withdrawal Agreement”?
Perhaps he does not care about Scottish commerce.
Finally, how about the president of the National Farmers’ Union Scotland, Andrew McCornick, who says:
“The draft Brexit Withdrawal Agreement, while not perfect”—
I certainly agree with that—
“will ensure that there are no hard barriers on the day we leave the European Union, and will allow trade in agricultural goods and UK food & drink to continue throughout the transition period largely as before.”
It is superb news that United Kingdom businesses and people will be well served by this deal. It is the only parrot that is available to us, and parliamentarians need to get behind it.

John Hayes: Diabetes is a plague across our nation. A total of 3.7 million people suffer from it—numerous in each of our constituencies—and that number has doubled in the past 20 years. Together with its consequent medical conditions, diabetes is life-limiting and, for many, life-ending. Perhaps most shockingly of all, the number of children diagnosed with diabetes has grown to record levels. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on the subject of diabetes? It would allow us to explore how it can be prevented, diagnosed more quickly and treated more effectively. Our Prime Minister, with typical fortitude and resolve, copes with diabetes. The deputy leader of the Labour party has boldly fought it off. A debate would allow us to explore how more people can deal with it, cope with it and defeat it.

Andrea Leadsom: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a terrible condition that is affecting growing numbers of people and, as he rightly points out, growing numbers of children. My own husband suffers from diabetes, and we know the Prime Minister suffers from it. Many people live with it on a day-to-day basis and it is a very, very serious problem for them. I would certainly welcome such a debate, and he might well like to seek a Westminster Hall debate in the near future so that all colleagues can discuss the condition.

John Bercow: I take this opportunity to acknowledge that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) is now not merely a man of Lincolnshire; he is a knight of Lincolnshire. Try as I do, I can scarcely keep up with his status and achievements.

Ian Mearns: The Backbench Business Committee is starting to feel like the Norwegian blue parrot. If it were not for the fact that it had been nailed to the perch, it would be pushing up daisies. To quote John Cleese, it would have “shuffled off” its mortal coil and gone to join the “choir invisible.”
We knew that we would not get Thursday 6 December, because this House will be discussing other matters that day, but the Committee was informed on Tuesday by some of its Conservative members that they had received communications from their own Chief Whip that the Committee would be allocated time on Thursday 13 December. Not being a body that is readily willing to dismiss the word of the Government Chief Whip, the Committee pre-allocated debates for that day, and we are now told, through the business statement today, that we will not get 13 December. By 13 December, it will be eight weeks since we have had Back-Bench time in this Chamber. I look forward to meeting the Leader of the House in early December to try to rectify this hiatus, but it is becoming overdue.

Andrea Leadsom: I am incredibly sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman. Let me make a brief comment about the report he gave about becoming aware of business from some Conservative members of the Committee. He will know that it is not unusual for Governments to make Members aware of likely business of constitutional importance or that require significant time commitments to try to be helpful to them. However, to be absolutely clear, that is always only provisional. The only time that business of this House is confirmed is on a Thursday morning at business questions in the Chamber, as it quite rightly should be. I fully understand his desire to ensure that his Committee has time to schedule its business in the Chamber. I am grateful to him for his letter and I look forward to meeting him in the near future to talk about his requirements. He will appreciate, however, that many hon. Members have been seeking a debate on the public health approach to serious violence for some time, so when it came to a choice with one day available, I had to prioritise the many competing demands and choose in favour of the significant problem of serious violence.

Bob Blackman: I understand that the police funding settlement for next year will be published next week, as will the local authority funding settlement, yet I see that there is no opportunity for a debate in the business to be transacted for the next  two weeks. Clearly, the decision on leaving the European Union is vital, but will my right hon. Friend find time for us to debate these very important issues, which are fundamental to the policing and local government of this country?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will appreciate that there is very important and time-constrained business over the next fortnight. We do, however, have Home Office questions on Monday 3 December, and I hope that he will take the opportunity to raise his concerns then.

Diana R. Johnson: rose—

John Bercow: Order. It was a great pleasure for me to be able to present the hon. Lady her award, courtesy  of the Political Studies Association, as Back Bencher of the year—a recognition of her extraordinarily diligent and effective parliamentary campaigning, specifically on the contaminated blood scandal. My sense was that that award to her was extraordinarily warmly received both at the dinner on Tuesday night and in many other quarters.

Diana R. Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When you presented the award to me, I thought you were trying very hard not to say, “She’s actually quite a bloody difficult woman and she’s not going to go away,” but I appreciated your remarks very much.
On Remembrance Sunday, BBC 2 broadcast the stunning Peter Jackson film, “They Shall Not Grow Old”, showing conditions on the frontline in world war one. I understand that the film was funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC. It is certain to become an important educational tool as we explain to the younger generations what happened in world war one. Unfortunately, it was only then on BBC iPlayer for seven days—as I understand it, because of the rights connected to the film. I wonder whether the Leader of the House might make representations to the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Education and the DCMS to see whether we can get the film back on BBC iPlayer, because it needs to be seen by as many members of the public as possible.

Andrea Leadsom: First, Mr Speaker, let me say that I share your delight at the hon. Lady’s award. She has certainly been a stalwart in this place, raising the issue of contaminated blood sufferers, and she has been absolutely right to do so. I totally value all the bloody difficult women in this place—and long may they continue to be so.
The hon. Lady typically raises a very important point in which all hon. Members will be interested. I would be happy to write to the DCMS on her behalf, but she will also be aware that we have DCMS questions on 13 December, and I recommend that she raise the matter then.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: As the Leader of the House is aware, Somerset is a blackspot for broadband. One of the problems is that a lot of the installers are being accused and blamed. The situation actually—this is the topic on which I  would like a debate—is that one land agent has been pushing farmers not to sign up until they get an awful lot of money for allowing wayleaves. The agent, Greenslade Taylor Hunt, has recently been done for price-fixing—a huge amount of money. Broadband is almost a right now. If we do not allow people to get it and we cannot use statutory powers to get it to isolated places such as Exmoor, we are failing in our duty. Can we have time to discuss this issue?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are committed to full fibre connections for the majority of homes and businesses by 2025, with a nationwide full fibre network by 2033. However, I do share his concern about some rural areas. There are many rural areas in my own constituency where the signal simply drops out. I recommend that he raise his specific points at Local Government questions on 10 December.

Martin Vickers: Following on from the point about police funding raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), we in the Humberside police area have a particular problem with the pension contributions that the force may have to make, which could result in the loss of all our police community support officers. The Home Secretary was good enough to meet Humberside MPs earlier this week, but we could do with an opportunity to discuss the issue further. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is right to raise this very important issue. He will be aware that we have provided the capacity for police and crime commissioners to access an extra £460 million this financial year. He will also be aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is determined to review the funding formula properly this year to make sure that police officers do have the resources that they need. We have Home Office questions on 3 December, and I encourage my hon. Friend to take the matter up there.

Ellie Reeves: Earlier this month, two people were stabbed to death in my constituency, including a 15-year-old child. Locally we have seen cuts to the police, child and adolescent mental health services, schools and youth services. I very much welcome the general debate on youth violence, but can the Leader of the House confirm that Ministers from across Departments will attend that debate to ensure that we have joined-up, cross-departmental approach to youth violence?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important issue. I think that all our hearts go out to the victims of knife crime, particularly those young people who have died in such appalling circumstances. She will be aware that getting young people out of a life of crime leading to serious violence is both a priority for the Government and a core part of our serious violence strategy. That, as she will be aware, is precisely why I am giving Government time for this debate in a couple of weeks.

Andrew Selous: May we have an urgent debate on the totally unacceptable lack of regulation of 16-plus children’s homes? This really matters for two reasons. First, many vulnerable  children are in huge danger because they are not properly supervised and they run away a great many times. Secondly, there is a huge waste of police time going into finding these children, which means that our police officers are not available to other residents when they are needed.

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is right to raise this very serious matter. The same legislation and regulations apply to provision for those over the age of 16, and we do expect local authorities to safeguard these children in the same way they would any looked-after child. It is for Ofsted to challenge those that are not meeting their duties. I hope he will welcome the fact that we are investing part of our £200 million children’s social care innovation programme in projects in London, where demand for placements outstrips supply, to increase councils’ capacity so that fewer children are placed far away from home. He might like to seek an Adjournment debate to raise the matters specific to his constituency and to get a response directly from Ministers.

Colleen Fletcher: It is welcome news that male suicide is at its lowest rate since records were first collected in 1981, but while this is encouraging, we cannot overlook the fact that there were still 4,382 male suicides registered last year. One such death is one too many. May we have a debate on what steps the Government, and indeed all of us, can take to further reduce the stigma around men’s mental health and to encourage men to open up and seek help when they are struggling and when they are in despair?

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising such a vital issue. She will be aware that the Government are investing significantly more—a record £12 billion—and are taking more action on mental health than any previous Government. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced that an additional £2 billion will go to funding mental health by 2023-24. For the first time, the NHS will be working towards standards for mental health that are just as ambitious as those for physical health. The hon. Lady might also be pleased to know that we have committed £1.8 million for the Samaritans helpline over the next four years, so that when people do want to talk, there is someone there to listen. It is an absolutely vital issue, and I know that all Members are committed to doing everything we can to solve the problem.

Henry Smith: In recent weeks, unfortunately, there have been a number of serious knife crimes in Crawley, including a murder. Even though I welcome the Sussex police and crime commissioner recruiting 200 extra officers and the Third Reading of the Offensive Weapons Bill last night, can we have a statement from the Home Secretary on county lines drug running? These incidents are all related to drug gangs from outside the constituency. I endorse what the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) requested.

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises the appalling problem of the spike in serious violence related to county lines and, in particular, knife crime. Tackling county lines is a huge priority for the Government. Our serious violence strategy includes a range of actions to  enhance our response to the issue. For example, we have established a new national county lines co-ordination centre, to enhance the intelligence picture and support cross-border efforts to tackle county lines. There is also funding for community projects, to encourage young people out of serious violence. I am sure my hon. Friend will want to take part in the debate we will have in two weeks’ time.

Vicky Foxcroft: Mr Speaker, I hope you will not mind if I thank the Leader of the House for securing a debate on tackling youth violence with a public health model. I have just one ask of that debate. Can we ensure that all the Ministers from all the relevant Departments are here to listen, if not respond, to the debate? That is a key point of the public health model and approach.

Andrea Leadsom: First, I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her superb pushing of this issue—she is absolutely right to have done that—and her excellent contribution on the radio this morning, which I know many Members heard. I take on board what she says and will try to ensure that as many Ministers as possible are here to hear at least the opening of the debate.

Matthew Offord: In less than two weeks, the UK is due to attend the intergovernmental conference in Marrakesh, to adopt the global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration. Many of my constituents have emailed me to say they are concerned that signing the pact will encourage economic migration, reduce national sovereignty and weaken our border controls. With countries such as Switzerland and Italy refusing to sign until their Parliaments have debated the issue, and with allies such as the US, Israel and Australia refusing to participate, will the Government find time for a debate on that important matter before the pact is signed on our behalf?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. He is right to have a care to issues around the protection of refugees, but also the importance of the integrity of national borders. We have Foreign Office questions on Tuesday 4 December, and I recommend that he raise the matter then.

Kelvin Hopkins: Early-day motions are a vital component of political expression for Back-Bench Members of this House and thus for our wider democracy. In recent times, however, the EDM service has been progressively diminished, such that new motions now disappear from listing in the blue pages very quickly, and there is no consolidated list of recent EDMs printed each week. Will the Leader of the House use her good offices to press the House authorities to restore the EDM service to its former strength and ensure its long-term future?

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I am not aware of it, and I am certainly happy to look into it on his behalf.

Nigel Huddleston: May we have a statement on the extent of the use of certificates of exemption under section 34 of the Freedom of   Information Act by Officers of the House and whether such exemptions could be used to stop disclosure of important issues such as bullying in this place?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. He will be aware that section 34 exemptions can be incredibly valuable in protecting free and open debate between advisers, Ministers and Members of Parliament. However, he is right to raise concerns about the proper use of such exemptions, and I encourage him to seek a Westminster Hall debate so that Members can share their views.

Bambos Charalambous: On 5 November, a 98-year-old man was seriously assaulted in his home and remains in hospital following an aggravated burglary in my constituency. Since then, there have been subsequent burglaries and serious crimes committed in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on police funding and the rise in crime nationally?

Andrea Leadsom: I am so sorry to hear about that. I am sure that was an appalling experience, and I am sure that all of us would want to send our best wishes to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent.
The hon. Gentleman has raised again the problem of serious knife crime, and I think the whole House shares that concern. That is why we are going to have a debate in two weeks’ time, and I do hope he will take part in it. As he will be aware, we have a serious violence taskforce. It is very clearly focused on trying to reduce the appalling incidents of knife crime, looking at prevention methods wherever possible to discourage young people from such an approach. In addition, I am sure he will welcome the fact that the Offensive Weapons Bill completed its stages in the House yesterday. We do therefore have some more measures that will prevent young people from accessing serious weapons that cause so much damage.

Simon Hoare: The Dame Laura Cox report shone a spotlight on the need for transparency, honesty and openness in this place on issues that are of concern to Members across the House and, indeed, to the country as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know that I have some residual concerns about the robustness and efficacy of the House of Commons Commission in dealing with these matters. I have described it in previous exchanges as a cross between the Magic Circle and the College of Cardinals. Will she guarantee a debate in Government time on the rules and terms of reference of the Commission to ensure that it is fit for purpose and meets the much higher bar of expectation—both in this place and in the country as a whole—of the standards now upon us?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises an issue in which I know the House of Commons Commission itself has shown some interest. I believe it wishes to be as transparent and open as possible. Certainly, from very preliminary discussions about the Cox report, I believe that Dame Laura’s view that serious reform is necessary has fallen on fertile ground. I think that we will be able to make further progress on that in due course.

Paula Sherriff: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
On Monday, I attended the launch of the GMB “Work to Stop Domestic Abuse” charter, and we heard some incredibly powerful testimonies from survivors of domestic abuse. The charter is an aide-mémoire to encourage employers to take action, including by offering paid leave to survivors and victims of domestic violence, offering policies and toolkits in the workplace, and empowering staff to take action and seek help if they are suffering domestic abuse. May we have a debate on how we can encourage other employers to take up this much needed charter?

Andrea Leadsom: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work in this area. She is absolutely right that we need to do everything we can to protect people from domestic violence, and employers can certainly do a lot more. I too have been very interested in supporting campaigns that seek to have employers take a much stronger interest in this issue. She will be aware that the Government have carried out a consultation on a domestic violence Bill, and we will bring forward draft legislation soon. We have also committed funding of £100 million to services for preventing violence against women and girls, to support organisations that are tackling domestic violence and abuse, including £8 million to support children. We all agree that there is much more to be done, but I think we are all on the same side.

Clive Efford: We are about to embark next week on one of the most important debates that this House has ever had to undertake. We are going to have 32 hours of debate over the five days, which allows roughly four minutes per Back Bencher if every one of them wants to speak, allowing for the payroll vote. Through the Leader of the House, may I ask the usual channels to discuss the possibility of sitting until 10 pm on Tuesday and Wednesday next week and perhaps even sitting a little bit later on Thursday, as well as the possibility of a Friday sitting and of starting earlier on the following Monday? That could add at least 15 hours to the debate and allow Back Benchers to get more than a few minutes each. I have not even taken out the time for Front-Bench contributions in those calculations. The time for Back Benchers to speak in that debate will be very tight, so please could we consider doing that?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the business of the House motion proposal has been tabled and is available in today’s remaining orders. The Government are determined to provide plenty of time for debate ahead of the meaningful vote on 11 December, and I hope colleagues will recognise that in providing five days of debate and specifying that the House should consider amendments ahead of the main question, they have sought to be helpful to the House. There will be a debate on the proceedings for the meaningful vote, during which the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his representations.

Chi Onwurah: I am recruiting for a parliamentary researcher in Westminster, and I want that position to be open to applicants from all backgrounds and regions. An applicant from the greatest city in the world, Newcastle, was put off by the absence of any support for relocation to work here as a  member of staff, although such support is available for Members of Parliament. Does the Leader of the House agree that this place must be open to people from all backgrounds and regions as both members of staff and Members of Parliament, and may we have a debate on how to make that a reality?

Andrea Leadsom: I certainly agree that we want as diverse a range of candidates as possible to come forward to work in this place. The hon. Lady will be aware that through the working group on harassment and bullying we have done a lot to ensure that when people come to this place and start working here, they get the training and support they need, and all the help that they can use to enable their job to be successful. On the hon. Lady’s specific point about help with the costs of relocating to Parliament, I am happy to discuss that with her separately if she would like to write to me.

Chris Law: I am sure all parliamentarians agree that one of the most important pillars of a modern democracy is freedom of the press. There seems to be an exception, however, because yesterday on her visit to Scotland the Prime Minister refused one of our biggest newspapers access to a press event. Today, The National quite rightly ran a front page with a silhouette of the Prime Minister, and it has refused to cover the story. May we have an urgent statement from the Prime Minister to explain her reason for refusing access to The National, and to explain in this House the importance of a free press?

Andrea Leadsom: I am not aware of the particular situation that the hon. Gentleman describes, but during the past two weeks, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spent more than nine and a half hours at the Dispatch Box, in the seat of our democracy in Parliament, taking questions from right hon. and hon. Members across the House who represent the interests of their constituents. To suggest that somehow she has not been accessible would be very, very short of the mark.

Madeleine Moon: A constituent was diagnosed with a glioma brain tumour in 2013, and she was given between three and five years to live. There is no treatment, but currently she is stable. She moved house and found a smart meter in place, and she has become extremely anxious and fearful about microwave radiation from that smart meter exacerbating the brain tumour. She went to British Gas and asked for it to be removed, but it refused, so she came to me. British Gas sent the most awful reply, basically refusing to remove the meter. May we have a debate about the responsibility of utility companies to consider people with serious medical conditions who have concerns and anxieties about issues such as smart meters, and to meet their consumer protection duties?

Andrea Leadsom: I am so sorry to hear about the illness of the hon. Lady’s constituent, and I am glad that she turned to the hon. Lady to seek help. I am sure she will have dealt with the issue in her usual forthright way. She raises an important point, which is that private sector businesses and public sector services need to deal with the unique circumstances in which some of our constituents find themselves. I am sympathetic to  her concerns, and I encourage her to seek either an Adjournment debate on that specific point, or a more general debate about consumer protection in Westminster Hall.

Marion Fellows: On 14 November the Prime Minister told me in the Chamber that she is
“sure the Post Office is making decisions that it believes are right for local communities and to ensure that services are there where they are needed.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 310.]
It will come as no surprise to many that I disagree with the Prime Minister. May we have a debate in Government time to discuss Post Office decisions and their effect on our local communities?

Andrea Leadsom: I have to say to the hon. Lady that I am a big fan of post offices. In my constituency, their opening hours are far superior to those of banks. Where the “last bank in town” issue has been a problem in my constituency, the post office, which offers basic banking services for all the major retail banks, has stood them in good stead.
The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have invested significant sums in Crown post offices and that they are not reducing, in aggregate, the availability of post office services to the public. Whenever the provision of services changes, the Post Office must consult widely. If the hon. Lady finds that that has not been her experience I encourage her to raise that in an Adjournment debate, so that she can discuss it directly with Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Ministers.

Kevin Brennan: The Leader of the House confirmed in her earlier remarks that the Attorney General could consent to the release of his advice to the Government on the Brexit deal if he deemed it expedient. Given the nature of the decision we are taking, is she not at all concerned that, should the full legal advice not be made available despite concerns about precedent, there is a real danger that history will look back at something that was not disclosed at the time and look very heavily at the decision taken by the Government?

Andrea Leadsom: As I said earlier, the Government will make available to all Members a full reasoned position statement laying out the Government’s legal position on the withdrawal agreement. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Attorney General is ready to assist further by making an oral statement on Monday. He will take questions from all Members in the normal way. I genuinely believe that will give all right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to get the answers they are seeking.

Rachael Maskell: This is the busiest time of the year for our post offices. Our postal workers’ futures in York are being determined over a six-week period, closing on 28 December. Clearly postal workers are distracted, when they have to focus on serving us. This situation needs more than an Adjournment debate. It has impacted 74 post offices across the country, so may we have a full debate on the future of our Crown post offices?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Lady has raised the issue of post offices in York previously, and I absolutely commend her for doing so. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all our hard-working postal workers, who are extremely busy at this time of year. I am sure a lot of us will be visiting them and expressing our gratitude more directly. She raises an important point, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I encourage them both to seek a Westminster Hall debate, so that hon. Members can raise this issue directly with Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Ministers.

Paul Sweeney: As a product of the Catholic education system in Scotland, may I ask the Leader of the House to join me in celebrating the centenary of the Education Act 1918? This was the Act that saw Catholic schools transfer from diocesan control to state governance. The alumni of those schools have made an extraordinary academic, cultural, civic and social impact over the past century. I am looking forward to visiting my former school tomorrow, Turnbull High School, which, along with St Roch’s, All Saints, St Mungo’s, St Andrew’s and John Paul Academy, educates many of my young constituents. Will the Leader of the House hold a debate on the ways in which Catholic schools are good not just for Catholics but for the nation as a whole?

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Andrea Leadsom: I think the hon. Gentleman will have heard that resounding “Hear, hear” from the Government Benches. There is obviously a lot of support for his view. I am delighted to join him in marking the centenary of the Education Act 1918 and in congratulating all those schools in Scotland, which do so much to educate the next generation.

Alison Thewliss: Today marks five years since the police helicopter crashed into the Clutha bar in Glasgow, killing 10 people, and Glasgow is preparing to mark it today. I would like to remember in this House those who were killed: Gary Arthur, Samuel McGhee, Colin Gibson, Robert Jenkins, Mark O’Prey, John McGarrigle, Joe Cusker, PC Kirsty Nelis, PC Tony Collins and the pilot, David Traill. My thoughts are with their families and those who were injured in the crash. Would the Leader of the House like to pay tribute to them as well?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Lady raises the tragic helicopter crash in Glasgow. All right hon. and hon. Members would want to send their condolences to the families and friends of all those who died, and we always hope and pray that such a thing never reoccurs. On this important anniversary, we send our very best wishes.

Gareth Snell: To their credit, the Government have led on the reduction of modern slavery. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the announcement by the Home Office are welcome, but the Leader of the House will know that the noble Lord McColl’s Bill, the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, is currently languishing at the bottom of the list of private Members’ Bills on Fridays. Could I encourage her, through her offices, to use whatever mechanism might be available to her to allow the Bill to progress at least to Committee? Many Members across the House   would wish to support it, and I know that the Government, given their particular wording earlier in the year, would want to offer their support as well.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the importance of private Members’ Bills. The Government certainly support the need for them and are very keen to ensure that progress is made. He will be aware that I have tabled a revised motion to give the House an additional six sitting Fridays for private Members’ Bills and that the Opposition have tabled an amendment to that motion to reduce it back to five. I remain very keen for the House to have those additional days to debate private Members’ Bills, and discussions continue through the usual channels.

Alan Brown: My constituent, James Potts, is married to a Thai national, but the immigration service has refused family visitor visas to his mother-in-law and sister-in-law. As there is no appeals process, their simply reapplying might lead to the same outcome. James has heart issues so it is difficult for him to travel to the other side of the world. With the best will in the world, if they did breach visa conditions, it would not be difficult to find them in Kilmarnock. Can we have a Government statement on why there is an automatic assumption that people will not return home and why there is no appeal process whereby MPs can assist their constituents?

Andrea Leadsom: I am extremely sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman says. I have also had constituency cases where parents or relatives have wanted to visit but have been turned down on the ground that it is suspected that they might not go home afterwards. I recently had a success where a non-resident parent was able to come and visit, and I was sent some fabulous photos of the family reunion, so I am extremely sympathetic. I encourage him to raise this point directly at Home Office questions on 3 December.

Chris Elmore: The Leader of the House will be aware—because I ask her frequently about this—of my campaign to improve connectivity   across my constituency. This time, I am specifically concerned about the roll-out of broadband. The providers say that one issue with the geography of constituencies such as mine is that the rolling and sweeping valleys make connectivity very difficult. Could we have a debate on broadband roll-out, specifically in relation to the hardest-to-reach places, not just in rural areas but across valley communities?

Andrea Leadsom: Yes, the hon. Gentleman does occasionally raise this matter in business questions, and is absolutely right to do so. I must reiterate that I also suffer from a lack of broadband in my constituency. All of us with hard-to-reach places would sincerely sympathise with his constituents. We have DCMS questions on Thursday 13 December, and I encourage him to raise this directly with Ministers.

Jim Shannon: A new report from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom finds a deeply troubling rise in the amount of content in school textbooks in Saudi Arabia promoting hatred. These textbooks encourage violent and non-violent jihad against non-believers and espouse the death penalty for women who allegedly have an affair, as well as demonising Christians, Shi’a and Sufi Muslims, non-Muslims and critics of Islam. Such textbooks fuel hatred and violence in Saudi Arabia and abroad, as they consistently find their way into the hands of extremist groups such as Daesh. This increase in hateful content also raises serious questions about the Saudi Government’s commitment to reform. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or debate on this issue?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue not just about the discrimination and persecution of people for their faith, or indeed, for not having a faith, but the way in which some of the extremist material then gets distorted and used by those who would become terror perpetrators. He is absolutely right to raise this issue. We have Home Office questions on Monday 3 December and Foreign Office questions on Tuesday 4 December, and I encourage him to raise it there.

Improving Education Standards

Nick Gibb: I beg to move,
That this House has considered improving education standards.
Since May 2010, the Government have been determined to drive up academic standards. Our overarching objective has been to ensure that every local school is a good school with a rigorous curriculum, higher standards of reading and maths, and with GCSE and A-level qualifications that are on a par with the qualifications used in the best performing countries in the world. Our drive has been to close the attainment gap between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their more advantaged peers.
In 2010, just 66% of pupils were attending schools judged by Ofsted to be good or outstanding; today, that figure is 84%. We focused on improving behaviour in schools by clarifying the powers that teachers have in the classroom, by scrapping the absurd law that Labour had introduced requiring 24 hours’ written notice for detention for a pupil, and we prevented headteachers’ decisions over expulsions from being undermined by giving them the final say over the return of a pupil. We clamped down on poor attendance and increased the fines for parents who failed to send their children to school. We expanded the academies programme to allow any good school, including primary schools, to opt for the professional autonomy that comes with academisation, and we expedited the route to sponsored academy status for those schools that were seriously underperforming.
There are now over half a million pupils in sponsored academies rated good or outstanding—those schools typically had been chronically underperforming, so that means over half a million pupils receiving a better education. Such schools include Great Yarmouth High School, which was judged inadequate by Ofsted in 2016. It converted to sponsored academy status in 2017 and was taken over by the multi-academy Inspiration Trust with a new headteacher, Barry Smith. Within a year, the school had been transformed. In May this year, Nicholas Marshall, an academic from Sheffield Hallam University wrote:
“Numerous teachers and support staff alike mentioned that the standards of pupil behaviour in the predecessor school were appalling and dangerous and how they had felt threatened. This was not now the case.”
He went on to write:
“The support staff…recounted stories in the predecessor school of large groups of students running around the school and disrupting learning, with adults being treated with gross disrespect and threatened.”
That has all changed. Ofsted now reports that bullying has declined and that lessons take place in a calm and orderly environment.
In 2017, the predecessor school, Great Yarmouth High School, had a Progress 8 score of minus 0.57, in the bottom 12% of schools nationally, with only 6% of pupils achieving the EBacc at grade 4 and just 30% achieving a grade 4 or above in English and maths. Now, just a year after conversion to academy status, Great Yarmouth Charter Academy has 55% achieving a grade 4 or above in English and maths in its provisional GCSE results, and it intends that to rise further still.
At Downhills Primary School in Haringey in 2011, just 63% of pupils were achieving the expected standard in the old SATs in reading, writing and maths combined, compared with the national average at the time of 79%.[Official Report, 12 December 2018, Vol. 651, c. 2MC.] The school was judged inadequate, and in 2012, became a sponsored academy in the Harris Federation multi-academy trust. This move was bitterly opposed by the National Union of Teachers, but today, the school is judged as good by Ofsted, 78% of its pupils are achieving the expected standard in reading, writing and maths in the new more demanding SATS, compared with the national average of 61%, and 82% of its pupils are reaching the expected standard in the new reading SATs.

Nigel Huddleston: I agree with everything that the Minister is saying about the improvements that can come from moving to a multi-academy trust. What practical support do schools get from Government to make that transition, which can sometimes be quite difficult, including financially difficult for some?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Grants are given to schools to help to fund the conversion process. About two thirds of secondary schools now have academy status and a significant proportion of primary schools—the figure is, I think, just under one third—have now converted to academy status.

Gareth Snell: While the Minister is talking about the conversions to academy status, will he explain why he thinks it is fair that when schools that have a deficit in their overall funding or their budget convert to academy status, that deficit stays with the local authority, rather than going into the multi-academy trust chain? Often, that just produces an additional financial burden for local government.

Nick Gibb: The reasoning behind that decision is, of course, that the deficit arose during the period in which the school was under the control of the local authority. That is why the deficit remains with the local authority on conversion.

Gareth Snell: I thank the Minister for being so candid with his answer. Will he explain, therefore, why it is that when schools have a surplus in their revenue budgets, that money goes into the multi-academy trust chain rather than staying with the local authority, given that that surplus will also have arisen under local authority control?

Nick Gibb: The reason for that is twofold. First, the surplus is often working capital and secondly, the school may well have been saving money from their revenue funding to purchase a capital item or to build a science block, and so on, and it would be a pity for those plans not to go ahead simply because they were being converted to academy status.
In opposition, when we were developing our academies and free school policy, we also came to the view that the policy would lead to higher standards not just in academies and free schools, but in local authority maintained schools. Last year, 83% of pupils at St Bonaventure’s Roman Catholic School were entered for the EBacc, up from just 33% in 2015. At St Paul’s Church of England  Primary School in Staffordshire in 2014-15, only 50% of its pupils were reaching the expected standard in reading, but last year, that had risen to 87%. I am sure that I could find a lot of other examples of local authority schools that have improved their standards under this Government.
Of course, it does all begin with reading. Central to our reforms has been ensuring that all pupils are taught to read effectively. Pupils who are reading well by age five are six times more likely than their peers to be on track by age 11 in reading, and counter-intuitively, 11 times more likely to be on track in mathematics. For decades, there has been a significant body of evidence demonstrating that systematic phonics is the most effective method for teaching early reading. Phonics teaches children to associate letters with sounds, providing them with the code to unlock written English. Despite that evidence, our phonics reforms were initially met with opposition from some. They were dismissed by some critics as being a traditional approach. I make no apology for this, because phonics works. I pay particular tribute to the former Labour Mayor of Newham, Sir Robin Wales, who, in his independent way, promoted phonics and reading in Newham. Despite being an area of significant disadvantage, Newham now boasts the best phonics results in the country. Labour deselected Sir Robin as its mayoral candidate earlier this year.
In England, schools’ phonics performance has significantly improved since we introduced the phonics screening check in 2012, when just 58% of six-year-olds correctly read at least 32 out of the 40 words in the check. Today that figure is 82%, which means that 163,000 more six-year-olds are on track to be fluent readers this year compared with 2012. In 2016, England achieved its highest ever score in the reading ability of nine-year-olds, moving from joint 10th to joint eighth in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study—PIRLS—rankings. This follows a greater focus on reading in the primary curriculum and a particular focus on phonics.
We need to go further, of course, so backed by £26 million of funding, we have selected 32 primary schools across the country to spread best practice in the teaching of phonics and reading. Our aim is for every primary school to be teaching children to read as effectively as the best, and I will not stop going on about phonics until this is achieved. Reading is the essential building block to a good, fulfilling and successful life.
We reformed the primary school national curriculum in 2014, restoring knowledge to its heart and raising expectations of what children should be taught, particularly in English and maths. Since 2011, the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their more affluent peers has narrowed in both primary and secondary schools in England.

Rachael Maskell: York is the worst-funded authority in the country, we have the widest attainment gap in the country, and our poorest schools in the most deprived areas have suffered the biggest cuts. How does the Minister correlate that evidence?

Nick Gibb: The Government are spending record amounts on our schools—£42.4 billion this year, rising to £43.5 billion next year—and the national funding formula ensures that deprivation and disadvantage are a priority in the additional needs element of the formula.

Rachael Maskell: I asked a specific question about York in the light of the evidence that I presented, and I should like the Minister to respond to it.

Nick Gibb: The national funding formula ensures that all areas of the country, including York, are funded on a fair basis. Pupils will receive the same amount wherever they go to school, on the basis of an initial single figure that is the same throughout the country. That represents about three quarters of the national funding formula. The other quarter is determined by the additional needs of the pupil, so a significant element of it is based on disadvantage, whether it relates to the income deprivation affecting children index, free school meals, low prior attainment, or a child who has English as an additional language. Where a particular area fits into the rankings of other local authorities will depend on the number of pupils with additional needs. That is a fair system. It should have been introduced when the Labour party was in office, but Labour left it to us to make a controversial decision to ensure that we have a fair funding system.

Rachael Maskell: Can the Minister explain how he proposes to close the attainment gap in York, which is the worst in the country, given that we also receive the worst funding?

Nick Gibb: It is our determination to ensure that every part of the country has higher levels of social mobility, and that every part of the country has high academic standards. We have 12 opportunity areas around the country where we are focusing extra resources and extra attention from our national campaigns to ensure that those areas improve their academic standards. We are also rolling out schemes such as the English hubs that I mentioned, which ensure that we spread best practice in the teaching of reading. We have maths hubs, which ensure that we spread best practice in the teaching of mathematics, and we are spreading best practice in the teaching of modern foreign languages. Wherever there is a gap in attainment, we take action to close that gap, and we take swift action to deal with schools—wherever they are—that are underperforming and not providing the quality of education that parents want and that we want for our young people.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is being generous with his time.
I wholeheartedly support not only the goals for improving standards, but the fairer funding formula. Schools in my constituency are funded in a similar way to those in the constituency of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). We really appreciate the efforts being made to improve school funding in my constituency, because it does make a difference, and I hope that they will be fully implemented very soon.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his supportive comments. We are, in a transition period—or implementation period, if you like—allowing local authorities to determine the allocations to individual schools within a local authority area, both this year and next year and in 2020-21. However, the funding for those authorities is determined on a school-by-school, pupil-by-pupil basis to ensure that every authority is funded on the basis of the children in its area.
The Government have reformed GCSEs to put them on a par with the best in the world, and A-levels have been reformed to improve students’ readiness for the demands of higher education. We have also introduced the English baccalaureate school performance measure to ensure that all pupils have the chance to create a solid academic foundation on which they can build their future. The EBacc is a specific measure consisting of GCSEs in English, maths, at least two sciences, history or geography, and a language. According to the Russell Group of universities, those are the subjects which, at A-level, open more doors to more degrees. They provide a sound basis for a variety of careers beyond the age of 16. They can enrich pupils’ studies and give them a broad general knowledge that will enable them to participate in and contribute to society.
Confining the EBacc to seven or sometimes eight GCSEs also means that pupils have time to study other subjects, including the arts, music and technical disciplines. Indeed, the vast majority of pupils continue to take the opportunity to study further academic GCSEs or high-value, approved vocational qualifications at key stage 4 alongside EBacc subjects. Under this Government, the percentage of pupils taking the EBacc suite of core academic subjects in state-funded schools has risen from just 22% in 2010 to 38% in 2018. However, we want the percentage to rise further, with 75% starting to study the EBacc by 2022 and 90% by 2025.
Having a secure grasp of the basics of mathematics, including multiplication tables, is crucial for children’s success in moving on to more complex mathematical reasoning. The national curriculum stipulates that children should be able to recall tables up to and including the  12 times table by the end of year 4. Next year we will introduce a new multiplication tables check in primary schools, to be taken by year 4 pupils, to ensure that every child knows their tables. That short on-screen check, which is easy to administer, will help teachers to identify pupils who may need more support in mastering their times tables, and will allow schools to benchmark their own performance against those of others.
Inspired by the success of the far east and building on the reformed national curriculum, we have established and funded a network of 35 maths hubs which are spreading evidence-based approaches to maths teaching through the teaching for mastery programme. We have invested a total of £76 million to extend the programme to 11,000 primary and secondary schools by the end of the current Parliament. The number of pupils taking maths A-level has risen for the past eight years, and it is now the single most popular choice. To encourage even more pupils to consider level 3 mathematics qualifications, we have launched the advanced mathematics support programme, giving schools an extra £600 per year for each additional pupil taking maths or further maths A-level or any level 3 mathematics qualification.
For the good of our economy, we need to equip more young people to pursue degrees and careers in the sciences, including computer science. We have already seen remarkable progress: entries to A-levels in science, technology, engineering and maths have increased by 23% since 2010. We are investing in programmes that improve science teaching, support teacher retention, and increase take-up in subjects such as physics. That includes  the network of science learning partnerships, which delivers continuing professional development through school-led hubs, and the stimulating physics network, which is helping schools to improve the take-up of A-level physics, especially by girls.
As a global trading nation, we need to raise the profile of languages, and we are determined to increase the number of students studying a language to GCSE. The proportion of pupils taking a foreign language in state-funded schools was 40% in 2010, and today it stands at 46%. We have introduced a package of measures to support language teaching, and to encourage more students to study modern foreign languages at GCSE and A-level. That includes the modern foreign languages pedagogy programme that I mentioned earlier, a mentoring pilot scheme and generous financial incentives, including scholarships and bursaries, to encourage more people to consider language teaching.
You may not have heard of the Mandarin excellence programme, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is a hugely successful example of what can be achieved through targeted programmes. According to the CBI’s education and skills annual report, which was published this month, education is the number one driver of productivity and economic prosperity. Mandarin Chinese boosts career opportunities: 37% of UK businesses cited Mandarin as useful to their business, up from just 28% in 2016. Our £10 million Mandarin excellence programme is on target to put at least 5,000 young people on track towards fluency in Mandarin Chinese by 2020. A total of 64 schools have joined the programme, and approximately 3,000 students are now participating. They study Mandarin for eight hours a week, spending four hours in class and four doing homework. The programme is proving hugely successful. At the end of each year the students take a hurdle test to ensure that they are progressing towards fluency, and they are all performing extremely well.
The EBacc may be at the heart of the curriculum, but it is not the whole curriculum. The Government believe that the EBacc should be studied as part of a broad and balanced curriculum, and that every child should experience a high-quality arts and cultural education throughout their time at school. To secure that breadth, each of dance, music, art and design, and drama are compulsory in the national curriculum from ages five to 14.
There are many examples of schools where the majority of pupils study the core academic curriculum while the arts continue to flourish. At Northampton School for Boys, for example, pupils take the EBacc but are also able to keep their options open in studying other subjects such as music, drama and art. Arts are promoted at the school with over 20 ensembles and choirs, and there are many extracurricular opportunities for pupils to experience a creative and varied arts programme.
We are also putting more money into arts education programmes—nearly half a billion pounds to fund a range of music and cultural programmes between 2016 and 2020; that is more than for any subject other than PE. The funding includes £300 million for our network of music education hubs. Just last month, the Arts Council published a report that showed that, through the hubs, over 700,000 children learnt to play instruments in class together last year.
As well as learning to play instruments, children should be taught to listen to music across a range of historical periods, genres, styles and traditions, including  the works of the great composers and musicians. That is why our Classical 100 resource produced by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music, Classic FM and Decca is so important. Over 5,500 schools are already using—[Interruption.] I think that is on the list, so well done to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). Over 5,500 schools are already using this excellent resource, which is free for all primary schools and I encourage others to do the same.
A culture of good behaviour in schools is critical to enabling pupils to fulfil their potential. We are continuing to support schools to create disciplined and safe environments that allow pupils to be effectively taught. For some schools, standards of behaviour remain a challenge. Poor behaviour not only has a negative impact on pupils’ education and wellbeing, but affects the experience of teachers in schools. That is why the Government commissioned Tom Bennett’s review of effective behaviour, “Creating a culture”, which highlights strategies that schools can deploy to design, build and maintain a school culture that prevents classroom disruption, maintains good discipline and promotes pupils’ education. To make sure our work on behaviour is embedded in the system, we recently announced a £10 million investment to enable schools to share best practice on behaviour and classroom management.
All these reforms have been delivered against the background of a changing landscape in terms of the autonomy of schools themselves. Through academies and free schools, we have given our frontline professionals, local communities and parents more freedom and choice. Since 2010, the number of academies has grown from 200 to over 8,200 including free schools. More than a third of state-funded primary and secondary schools are now part of an academy trust. The reforms of the last eight years show that autonomy and freedom in the hands of excellent heads and outstanding teachers can deliver high-quality education.
Converting to become an academy is a positive choice made by hundreds of schools every year to give great teachers and heads the freedom to focus on what is best for their pupils. Academy status leads to a more dynamic and responsive education system by allowing schools to make decisions based on local need and the interests of their pupils. It allows high-performing schools to consolidate success and spread that success to other schools.
The figures speak for themselves. Some 65% of inspected sponsored academies whose predecessor schools were judged to be inadequate now have either good or outstanding Ofsted judgments. Around one in 10 sponsored academy predecessor schools were good or outstanding before they converted, compared with almost seven in 10 after they became an academy where an inspection has taken place.
Beaver Green Primary School in Ashford, Kent is a good example of how a school can be turned around. Judged as inadequate by Ofsted in 2013 and with a long history of underperformance, it became an academy in 2015 and last year was Ofsted-rated good in all areas, with the early years provision being rated as outstanding. Newfield Secondary School in Sheffield was rated as inadequate from 2006 until October 2010. But meaningful improvements began to take place when the school became an academy, and when it was inspected in March 2017, for the first time as an academy, it was judged as good. At its best, the multi-academy trust model can be  a powerful vehicle for improving schools. It allows high-performing schools to consolidate success and spread that excellence to other schools.

Theresa Villiers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, among high-performing schools, that can include pupil referral units? There is an excellent pupil referral unit in my constituency called the Pavilion, and I would welcome my right hon. Friend’s affirmation that these units can provide excellent education, which is not always recognised by the general public.

Nick Gibb: My right hon. Friend is right. We have published our vision document for alternative provision. We want the right pupils in the right provision. Like her, I can point to excellent examples of alternative provision. The London East Alternative Provision School in Tower Hamlets provides an ordered, calm environment where young people can get their education back on track, and half the pupils who attend that unit manage to achieve a GCSE in maths or English. The Wave Multi Academy Trust in Cornwall is a chain of alternative provision schools which provide an excellent second chance for young people who have lost their way sometimes in education. Since 2012, WISE Academies—a mainstream schools multi-academy trust in the north-east—has taken on nine sponsored academies, all of which previously had significant performance concerns. The trust reduced teacher workload through more efficient lesson planning and the creation of shared resources, and introduced new ways of teaching such as maths mastery techniques brought over from Singapore. That has contributed to every school that has been inspected since joining the trust being judged as good or outstanding.
This is a Government who for more than eight years have been unflinchingly driving up standards in schools with a reform programme that is already delivering more good schools, better-quality qualifications, children reading more fluently, improved mathematics, higher expectations, more control for teachers over pupil behaviour, and more than 800,000 new school places. Opposite we have the serried—or sparse, today—ranks of Labour MPs, whose party opposed our reforms every step of the way, opposed the phonics check and opposed  the EBacc, which is giving opportunities of study to the most disadvantaged that are routinely enjoyed by the most advantaged. It is a Labour party that is the enemy of social mobility and the enemy of promise, and that in office presided over declining standards, grade inflation and a proliferation of qualifications that had little value in the jobs market. And it is a Labour Party that would scrap the free schools programme: a programme that led to the establishment of Dixons Trinity Academy, Bradford, which was eighth in the country last year for Progress 8 and 82% of whose pupils were entered for the EBacc; and the Harris Westminster School, which tells us that, with 40% of its pupils from a disadvantaged background, 18 pupils went to Oxbridge last year.
The contrast between the two parties has never been starker: improving education standards delivered by a Conservative Government; and low expectations and falling academic standards, the hallmark of Labour’s approach to education.

Mike Kane: In the past fortnight, we have seen the most unstable period of government since the Maastricht rebellion of  the early 1990s. Unlike that debacle, however, this Government cannot rely on their own MPs, or even Unionist MPs, to make up the numbers. Indeed, many of the Minister’s colleagues have aired open mutiny directly to the Prime Minister in this Chamber; it is a piteous sight. So I was surprised to hear the Leader of the House announce last Thursday that there would be a general debate on improving education standards today. Thursday is normally reserved for Back-Bench business, but the Government do not want to hear any Back-Bench business at present.
This is an astonishing act of hubris: the Government have chosen to debate a subject for which they have shown nothing to show but failure over the past eight years. The right hon. Gentleman’s colleague the Secretary of State for Education must know that the Government have failed in their duty to improve educational standards, because in July the Secretary of State conceded that too many teachers were overwhelmed by excessive workload and then pledged to do more to support teachers and said he was trying to squeeze more funding out of No. 11. What did teachers get in last month’s Budget? The primary way of improving standards is to improve the quality of our teaching workforce and the relationship they have with their pupils, but there was no increase in school funding last month. Instead, budgets are set to fall again in the year ahead, and teachers did not see a proper pay rise. In fact, the majority of teachers will face another real-terms pay cut this year.

Nick Gibb: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was paying attention to the Budget, but £400 million of extra capital was given to schools to spend this year, and another £508 million was given to schools to fund the pay award over two years.

Mike Kane: The majority of teachers will face a real-terms pay cut. I will come on to the £400 million in just a moment.
In the Chancellor’s words, all that the teachers got was a few “little extras”. The Secretary of State was said to have winced when asked about the Chancellor’s choice of words, which is not exactly the endorsement that one would expect from a Cabinet colleague. However, the Chancellor then doubled down by saying that the £400 million for “little extras” could buy
“a couple of whiteboards, or some laptop computers or something”.
It is no wonder that the Secretary of State cringed.
I am sure that the Minister will remember his colleague, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), now the Environment Secretary, saying that the measure of this Government’s success would be how the country would perform in the PISA rankings. That is what the Government predicated their agenda on. However, the PISA rankings that followed showed that the UK had failed to make any substantial improvements. In fact, we slipped back down the rankings. That shows the Government’s failure to improve standards on their own terms.

Nick Gibb: The children who were tested in those PISA rankings spent most of their education in schools under the last Labour Government.

Mike Kane: They certainly did, and much of the improvement came from 2010 when we identified resources for coasting schools before we left government. The Minister, who has no formal pedagogic training, has based today’s debate on the back of a ConservativeHome article from a couple of weeks ago. He does not want experts to advise him. He has resisted the experts. He does not want to hear from our world-class universities and teaching institutions, which our competitors in the PISA rankings use to improve their education.
The Minister tells us that success and attainment in the primary school curriculum have gone up, but let us deconstruct that. All the international evidence produced over the past 30 years shows that interventions in the curriculum—and the Minister has had a few—and testing produce disruption to teaching and learning whereby results initially start low, rapidly improve as teachers and students learn what they need to do in order to do well in the tests, then tail off and plateau as this artificial improvement stops. This is known as teaching to the test. He can produce the statistics, but even Ofqual has recognised this problem as the “sawtooth effect”. That is what happens when we change the curriculum.
The Minister talked about the primary test. It is one of the numerous directed tests placed on schools, and it is adding administrative burdens. He is trying to run 22,000 schools from Great Smith Street. Why? Artificially inflated test results say nothing about the real quality of teaching, learning and standards achieved. We are narrowing the curriculum to cramming for tests in maths and English. In examining terms, we are measuring the construct of test-taking rather than the real knowledge of maths and English, let alone all the other worthwhile school subjects such as music and drama that have been pulled out of the curriculum because of the narrowing of the focus of the curriculum in this country. This is happening because somebody without any pedagogical knowledge feels fit to direct schools in what they teach. Primary schools already teach multiplication, and we do not need more money to be wasted on testing it. We need more money to be spent on teaching it.
Let us address the Government’s academies expansion and their free school programme. The Minister cited no evidence that any of their reforms have genuinely improved standards in schools or outcomes for pupils. In fact, more than 100 free schools that opened only in the last couple of years have now closed, wasting hundreds of millions of pounds in this failed programme.

Neil O'Brien: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech very much. Why does he think that, according to the Progress 8 measure, free schools are now our top-performing type of school?

Mike Kane: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my answer about the disruption to the curriculum by new testing procedures. I have academic evidence from our major universities showing how the Minister came to that resolve and showing that he is wrong.

Neil O'Brien: I gently ask the hon. Gentleman at least to acknowledge that free schools are now, according to the Progress 8 measure, the highest-performing type of school in this country.

Mike Kane: There is no evidence whatsoever for that. We know that 100 free schools have opened and shut in the past few years. We had one free school in Bermondsey that cost £1 million over two years and attracted 60 pupils. The local authority begged for it not to be opened, but it cost £60,000 per pupil while it lasted. We could have sent those pupils to Eton for half the price, although let me say to my hon. Friends that I am not advocating sending anybody there at the moment. We have 100 schools, unbrokered, containing 700,000 children. The Government cannot get anywhere near enough sponsors for the academies. They have only the Church of England in the rural areas and the Co-op, the Churches and the faith schools. The Education Policy Institute has stated that
“large structural reforms, through the expansion of the academies programme and the introduction of free schools, have so far resulted in…no impact on overall attainment.”
That is a damning measure, after eight years of this Government.
An economical attitude to evidence is apparent from the Government’s claim that 1.9 million children are in schools that are rated good or outstanding. Many of those schools have not been Ofsteded for more than 10 years, and the claim does not take into account the fact that we now have more pupils in the system. This is a discredited statistic. The UK Statistics Authority and the independent Education Policy Institute have raised serious concerns about it. The claim does not account for increases in the school population, or for the number of pupils who are in schools that have not been inspected since before 2010. In other words, it does not give the full picture. Today, the Minister has a chance to correct the record. Are his colleagues, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, right to say that their policies have led to 1.9 million more children being educated in schools rated good or outstanding, or is the UK Statistics Authority right to say that they need to put that figure into context? I would be happy to give way to the Minister on this point.

Nick Gibb: I said in my speech that, in 2010, 66% of pupils were attending schools that were then graded good or outstanding. Today, 84% of pupils are attending schools that are graded good or outstanding. If we multiply that out, we get the 1.9 million figure that the hon. Gentleman has cited.

Mike Kane: There we have it. That at least provides some context, but it is not what the UK Statistics Authority, the Institute for Fiscal Studies or the Education Policy Institute have said. These are made-up figures from a Government who have run out of ideas for education.
The true hindrance to improving standards is austerity. After all, every area of education—from early years, where we have seen 1,000 Sure Start programmes cut, to schools to further and higher education—has seen massive cuts since the Conservative party came to power. Our analysis of figures produced by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that school budgets are £1.7 billion lower in real terms than they were five years ago.

Neil O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman continues to refer to early years cuts, which I find extraordinary, given that spending on early years will rise to a record £6 billion  by 2020 and given that we have introduced new things such as the 30 hours’ free childcare offer, tax-free childcare and the offer of free childcare for disadvantaged two-year-olds.

Mike Kane: There is a huge threat to maintained nursery schools, which we hear enough about from Government Members. The Government cut 1,000 Sure Start centres. The sure-fire way to achieve social mobility in our country is to make the best provision available for the youngest people in our society. We do not have that anymore; those Sure Start centres were cut. I will come to the impact of that on social mobility in a second.
Our analysis of the IFS figures shows a £1.7 billion cut in real terms. Government Members know it in their schools, too, because they talk to headteachers just as we do in our constituencies. To unpack that, these cuts, along with the impact of the public sector pay freeze and then the cap, have created a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, which was not once referred to by the Minister today. The Government have subsequently missed the teacher recruitment and retention target for five successive years, and in the past two years, more teachers have left than have joined the profession.

Nick Gibb: rose—

Mike Kane: For the third or fourth time, and following his speech, which went on for about 26 minutes, I give way to Minister.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been extremely generous to me and my hon. Friends. I shall try to make this the last intervention. He might have missed the statistics that came out this morning, which showed that this year we recruited 8% more people, or over 2,000 more, into teacher training than we did in the previous year.

Mike Kane: Last year, we saw the number of teachers decline by 5,000. The Minister might come up with a statistic today, but teacher numbers are going down. Since 2011, a third of all teachers have left. I spoke to Teach First just the other day in a meeting. The current rate is one in, one out. Does the Minister bear no responsibility for the reforms, the pressures and the lack of pay rises that are the reason why so many great graduates and brilliant people are no longer training the future of our country but are leaving the profession? Does he bear no responsibility at all? Five thousand have left in one year.
Despite the noble effort of staff and teachers, schools are unable to deliver the high-quality education that children deserve because they simply do not have the funding to make ends meet, for either themselves or their schools. The Government’s own analysis has shown that teachers were around £4,000 worse off in 2016, compared with 2010, as a direct result of their policies on pay. Furthermore, the IFS has found that the promised pay rise will see the majority of teachers facing another real-terms pay cut.
Earlier this year, I was shocked to read a BBC article that reported that children were filling their pockets with food from school canteens because they were hungry. This is Tory Britain, 2018. These were children  with greying skin. They were malnourished and afflicted with hunger. As a teacher, I know that schools cannot teach children properly if they are hungry in the classroom. That is happening in our country—one that now has 4.5 million children in poverty. That did not happen in a vacuum. Poverty is the grim and logical conclusion to austerity. Its effects are palpable, and its consequences can be irrevocable. If the Government truly want to see standards in education rise, they must do the logical thing and truly end austerity once and for all.

Jeremy Lefroy: I think this is the first time, and it will no doubt be the last, that I have been called to speak first in a debate after the Front Benchers. It is a great honour to do so. I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their speeches. Both made important points. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is a great example of the importance of sticking at a job through many years. I just wish that politics would allow highly capable people to do that in other posts, rather than being changed after six months just when they begin to get going. I pay tribute to him for all that he has done in his role over most of the last eight and a half years.
I also pay tribute to the teachers, teaching assistants, support staff and all who work in the schools, further education colleges and other educational institutions, including training providers, in my constituency of Stafford. They do a wonderful job day in, day out. That is often not recognised, and although I will not single out any particular schools in my constituency—some are outstanding and some are good—I want to say to all who work in all of them that they have my thanks and the support of my constituents.
I also want to thank governors, who do a very difficult job. I have been a governor of two different schools, one overseas and one in this country. I know how much work my colleagues on the governing body at the time put in week in, week out. I also join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the Church of England, Catholic and other faith schools around the country, which provide a large percentage of the education in our country, particularly at primary but also at secondary level. Long may that continue.
I am not an expert in education in the slightest. However, I try to listen to educators, employers and others for whom education is so important. I want to start with a quotation—not quite word for word—from a major employer in the city of Birmingham who I happened to hear speaking at a meeting we held there a couple of months ago, which I was chairing. This was a major employer, employing tens of thousands of people, who said that the quality of the young people coming for interview in Birmingham, where the headquarters had recently been moved, was much higher in terms of educational standards than it had been a number of years before. They were work-ready, they wanted to do the jobs, and he was proud to be able to employ them.
That was nothing to do with those individuals; it was due to the background of improving standards in the education they had received at school and university. I do not want to say that that is due to any particular Government. Clearly there has been more than one  Government in that period—a Labour, a coalition and a Conservative Government. However, I pay tribute to all those who have enabled those young people to get into a position where they can apply for and get into jobs in a well respected company and be appreciated for that by the chief executive. Let us begin on that positive note, and I am sure that that experience is replicated throughout the country.
Let me turn to the finances of schooling. The Library says that my constituency of Stafford has seen a fall in cash terms over the four years to 2017 of just under £300 per pupil. Clearly we have seen a rise for 2018-19, and I welcome the new funding formula, which I will talk about a little, but that shows the pressure that schools have been under. We were more than £400 per pupil below both the regional west midlands average and the English average for schools in 2017-18. I fully accept that there has to be a difference in funding in certain areas that have higher needs and costs, particularly in London and other conurbations. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the gap in her constituency, as others have for theirs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston). However, a more than £400 per pupil difference between Stafford and the average—not the highest, but the average—is too much. It is not acceptable that we have such a major discrepancy, which has been going on for decades, between the lowest-funded and not the highest-funded but the average across England.
That obviously comes at a time when costs are going up, and those costs are common to all schools, whether it is the cost of pensions, the cost of employer national insurance contributions or other costs. We have to remember that the vast majority of costs for schools and education institutions are payroll-related costs, which tend to be similar across the country. I credit the Government for recognising that and for their aim to have fairer funding for schools across the country, which I welcome, but it has to come at a time when overall resources are rising, because we do not want to be put in a position where Peter is robbed to pay Paul; we want to be in a position where the gap narrows on a rising tide.

Emma Hardy: What does the hon. Gentleman think about having a hard funding formula? Does he agree there could be problems in having an entirely national hard funding formula that does not allow any discretion for local authorities with slight variations in need? It would be impossible for any Government to set a national funding formula that could truly adapt to reflect every single school in our country.

Jeremy Lefroy: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I am a pragmatist. I accept that schools in Stafford will receive less than schools in London, Birmingham or Stoke-on-Trent, but it should not be that much less. I accept that there are variations across the country that need to be taken into account, and that we cannot have an absolute hard and fast rule, but I also recognise the problems the Government face, because 650 MPs will be claiming to have special circumstances. We need to have some rules somewhere, but we also need some flexibility. Given that we all pay tax and national insurance at the same rate, certainly in England, it seems similar to the situation with healthcare. By the way, the discrepancies in healthcare are much, much greater—   my clinical commissioning group has a discrepancy of £400 per head compared with some of the highest-funded CCGs in the country, and that is on a much lower level per head than education, so the percentage discrepancy is much greater. There should not be huge discrepancies in funding for public services. There will be discrepancies, but they must be modest and moderate.
I recognise the additional pressures that teachers and schools currently face, and I want to mention areas other than finance, because it is not all about money. The pressures include, for instance, the pressure of social media both on teachers and on students and pupils in schools and colleges. Teachers are sometimes anonymously attacked through social media, and they have to put up with stuff that we in this House are perhaps used to, but that they should not have to put up with in any way, shape or form.
I am glad that some schools in my constituency have taken to banning smartphones, and I think that ban should be universal in schools. President Macron, whom the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs quoted in French earlier this morning, has a very good policy in which he proposes to ban smartphones from primary and middle schools in France. I think all schools should consider such a ban.

Chris Elmore: The hon. Gentleman might be aware that in recent weeks I have been leading an inquiry with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) into social media and its impact on young people’s mental health. One of the things coming out of that inquiry is that many teachers have no training on how to use social media and on how young people interact with it. Parents and outside social groups also do not understand it. Does the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) agree there is a need for teacher training programmes, whether in Wales, Scotland, England or Northern Ireland, to focus on giving some sort of lessons in how trainee teachers can use social media for good, and how they can tackle some of the problems that social media causes in schools, too?

Jeremy Lefroy: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. Some of us here could do with training in the use of social media, because some of the things that colleagues on both sides of the House—I will not mention any names—tweet or say on social media are, frankly, outrageous and do not improve the quality of debate, but that is just my personal opinion. I would like us all to be a bit more positive. If teachers want to look for training, they should not look to the House of Commons to learn how to use social media unless we improve our own standards. I would welcome the approach he suggests, and perhaps the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills could address that in her response.
Funding for 16 to 19 education has been particularly squeezed over the past few years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Chair of the Select Committee on Education, said in a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a couple of months ago:
“It cannot be right that a funding ‘dip’ exists for students between the ages of 16 and 18, only to rise again in higher education. Successive governments have failed to give further education the recognition it deserves for the role”
it plays in addressing our problem with productivity—or words to that effect. He is absolutely right.
Young people of 16 to 19 are moving into the next stage of their life, and it is vital that there is no let-up in preparing them for an incredibly challenging, demanding world. The world is full of opportunities, but people need to have the skills and the background to take up those opportunities.

Emma Hardy: I echo what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I give him my wholehearted support. I am pleased that the Minister for Apprenticeship and Skills is now sitting on the Front Bench, because she knows how important and how desperately underfunded we feel further education to be. We had hoped for more from the recent Treasury announcement, and all I can ask is that she keep pressing the Treasury to fund our further education colleges properly.

Jeremy Lefroy: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning that. I also give credit to the Minister, because I know how much she engaged with me and other colleagues on Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group earlier this year when we had a particular problem with apprenticeships, which has been largely solved thanks to the work of the colleges and the Department. I thank her for her support.
There was a survey of sixth-form colleges in October 2017. Emails from the Government to us Back Benchers say that surveys are rarely designed to be helpful. However, in this case, even if the survey is not entirely accurate it makes some extremely important points. For instance, 50% of colleges that responded said they had dropped courses in modern foreign languages. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards for what he said about foreign languages, which are vital. I was not aware of the Mandarin programme, and I will have to see how many of my local schools, if any, have taken it up. I am a passionate supporter of the teaching of modern foreign languages, especially as we move into an interesting time in the coming years.
Thirty-four per cent. of respondents had dropped courses in STEM subjects, and 67% had reduced student support services, which are incredibly important, particularly for the 16 to 19 age group, in which people are under quite a lot of pressure, not least from social media. Seventy-seven per cent. were teaching students in larger classes, and I could go on. There were clearly pressures, and I know my right hon. Friend the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, who has responsibility for further education, will be looking hard at that survey and no doubt engaging with the sixth-form colleges and further education colleges to see how these matters can be addressed.
I feel passionately about readiness for work and soft skills, which are vital for our country’s future and our young people’s future. I have the honour of chairing the international Parliamentary Network on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, and I met the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) a few months ago to ask him whether he would mind editing a book on the future of work, an area in which he has a lot of expertise. He did so, and we launched the book at the World Bank meetings in Indonesia at the beginning of last month and here in Parliament a couple of weeks ago.
The book’s examples from around the world, whether from Singapore, South Korea or Argentina, clearly show that everybody is facing this issue of the future  of work. There are huge changes coming up, whether through artificial intelligence or the next generation of technology, and we have to prepare our young people not necessarily for those individual skills—skills and techniques move on—but for the ability to change and to accept the need to retrain. They need flexibility in the way they think about the future. That has to start not when people have left school, college or university, but at primary school. It does not have to start too early, but perhaps in year 6 and moving on into year 7. Many schools and colleges are trying to do that work, but they need support; they need recognition for that in the curriculum. Readiness for work is vital.
Let me mention one small step we have taken in Stafford. With some friends and colleagues, I started a schools debating competition a couple of years ago, whereby schools and colleges can come to the House of Commons to compete against each other in a friendly, competitive manner. We are very pleased with the results. One thing young people have said to me is that it gives them much greater confidence to speak in public.

Bill Cash: I commend what my hon. Friend is saying and the work he is doing, because I am his next-door neighbour, and Stafford and Stone run together in a lot of these matters. We are both fighting hard to get the best possible standards for our constituents.

Jeremy Lefroy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Clearly, some of my constituents go to schools in his constituency and vice versa. I have experience of the issues faced by rural schools, including small ones, but he has much more experience of that than I do.

Emma Hardy: Let me say what a pleasure it is hearing a debate in which I agree with what a Government Member is saying—I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I echo what he was saying about the importance of debating, and I invite him to join my all-party group on oracy. Will he again endorse the recommendations of “Bercow: Ten Years On” for improving speech and language throughout our schools?

Jeremy Lefroy: I would be happy to do so. I cannot claim I would add much to it, but perhaps I would learn a lot from it.
I am going to conclude, because I have detained the House for long enough, but I wish to make two final points. First, as has been mentioned, out-of-school activities, whether conducted by teachers or by others, are essential. We could be talking about clubs, which have been given a hard time in the past few years, but in my constituency are now largely run by churches and other voluntary organisations. We could be talking about sports clubs—we have some excellent sports clubs in my constituency. We could be talking about music and drama—I have some excellent youth theatre groups in my constituency. We could be talking about outdoor activities, which I have great passion for, having run a Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme for a number of years in London, or about young enterprise. That is just to mention a few, but they are essential. Whether they are conducted within schools or outside them, by teachers or by others who are committed to young people, we have to ensure that they are supported.
Unless young people have those opportunities—all young people, including those whose parents find it difficult to take them, and not just those whose parents want them to go—they will miss out on so much in this great country of ours. I am fortunate to live in Staffordshire, where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) knows, we are within an hour or two of some of the most beautiful countryside on earth. Indeed, we live among some of it, let alone within an hour or two of it. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) is looking at me and wants to me to mention Cannock Chase, so of course I will. It is beautiful, and a lot of outdoor activities take place there.
The final point I wish to make is a serious one about exclusions from school. There has been a sharp rise in Staffordshire and, I believe, in other parts of the country. I can understand why that happens—schools and teachers are under a lot of pressure, and if they find that young people are being disruptive for whatever reason, including pressures at home, excluding them becomes an option that, if not easy, is perhaps easier than it has been in the past. First, I do not believe it is right that schools should be put in that position, and I am not blaming the schools for it. Secondly, it is putting a great deal of pressure on pupil referral units and other places, including parents at home.
I ask the Minister to address that point. I ask her to look at the issue of exclusions nationally and ensure that when Ofsted assesses pupil referral units, it ensures that they are not judged against standards they find impossible to maintain. In Staffordshire, we have pupil referral units that are being asked to provide more and more time per pupil, and I fully agree with that, but they are being asked to do so with limited resources. That results in more antisocial behaviour. In Stafford, it has resulted in attacks on teachers, who are being put into danger. As a result, they have to take action, which means reducing the time per pupil again, then they get attacked by Ofsted by not having sufficient time per pupil. I would like the Government to look into that, because it is a very serious issue. I am not sure whether it is peculiar to Staffordshire, or whether it happens across the country—

Emma Hardy: indicated assent.

Jeremy Lefroy: The hon. Lady makes it clear that it is happening elsewhere in the country.
I want to end on an optimistic and positive note. Again, I wish to thank all those involved in education across the country for all they do, day in, day out. They do it with great spirit and humour and sensitivity. They invest in the future of our young people, who are the future of this country.

Vicky Foxcroft: I agreed with what the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said about exclusions, which I will touch on more later in my speech. Some Members may know that when I speak in the Chamber, I tend to speak about youth violence and I will be doing that in this debate because education is very much at the heart of the solutions to this. There is no doubt that some of the funding cuts have proven difficult in terms of tackling youth violence. In particular, it has put pressures on those working in education. I want to focus some of my points on that.
Improving education standards is a good thing, but it is not just about improving grades or about increasing the number of young people who go to university—although, obviously, that is a good thing. It has to be about ensuring that our schools develop our young people and present them with all the opportunities and skills for the future that they so desperately need and thus reducing the likelihood that they will ever be involved in violence. Schools are at the forefront of tackling youth violence. We do lots of school intervention programmes that say, “Don’t carry a knife as you’re more likely to be stabbed”, but we know that that message is not quite working. It is not quite getting through to them, because they are still carrying knives and getting involved in youth violence. We need to make sure we give them far more positive messages and training that says, “You are the future doctors, nurses, politicians. You can be what you want to be.” We need to have that, and the fear of losing it in the future, as the reason why they are too terrified to carry a knife.
The Minister may be aware of the recent research by The BMJ showing that children under 16 are at the highest risk of being stabbed on their way home from school. That backs up what the police, youth workers and teachers have been saying to me for years. I thoroughly believe that as policy makers we have a responsibility to intervene where we can. For example, could we consider keeping our kids in school until 6 pm, staggering their leaving hours or making sure we have youth workers in schools during those times, given that we have such convincing evidence before us? I asked tons of questions on this in the past, but the Departments do not actually hold this information. Perhaps the Government should look at that seriously in order to make sure we really can analyse it.
Other measures could help keep young people safe while they are at school. Over the summer, the Youth Violence Commission published its interim report. I urge the Minister to read it if she has not had a chance to do so yet. It takes only about 30 minutes and it is written in a brief way. If she is keen to read a lot more, she can look on the website, which also has a ton of information.
One of our recommendations was to attach a dedicated police officer to every school in the country. The idea was not to police our kids in school; it was very much about building trust between police and young people. We know that there has been a breakdown in the relationship between young people and the police, but if they see a police officer in school—they might even play football with the police officer—that relationship will start to build. Hopefully, they will feel able to speak to police officers if in future they have worries or troubles. When we went to schools that had dedicated police officers who did have that relationship with young people, many of those young people wanted to go on and become police officers in future, and quite often they were from backgrounds that we would not traditionally think would mean they would want to join the police.
The Youth Violence Commission recommends a long-term aspiration to have zero exclusions from mainstream education. We cannot ignore the link between school exclusion and social exclusion: once children are permanently excluded, it is very difficult for them to move back to mainstream education. Once in a pupil referral unit, a child has a very low chance of achieving  five good GCSEs. PRUs have often been called pipelines to prison, which is hardly surprising when more than half the current prison population were excluded while at school. Worryingly, exclusions are on the rise, having increased by at least 40% in the past three years. When we know that something is not working, why are we still doing it? Why do we not invest the money from the PRUs and put that into school early intervention programmes? We should speak to primary school head- teachers about who they see as the vulnerable children who could perhaps do with that wrap-around love, care and support, be it from nurses or peer role models. Why are we not investing the money at that point to provide support for our young people?
Education standards are part of the problem. The Government’s narrow focus on improving grades has led to schools quietly off-rolling students in attempts to improve their overall results. As part of their work to improve education standards, I hope that the Government consider our rising exclusions problem. In fact, is it not time that the Government entirely reviewed the merits of implementing a zero-exclusions policy across the board?
When the commission was carrying out our research, we consulted young people across the UK, and the same issues with the curriculum were raised with us consistently. Young people told us they wished that basic life skills—from how to write a CV to how to budget and how they might apply for a mortgage—were taught in school. Indeed, when we teach some of these life skills, we can also teach basic maths and literacy and other parts of the curriculum.
Many employers look for social media skills in new recruits, so that they can promote their business or reach out to new audiences, so why not start teaching social media at school? Not only could these lessons help young people to become more employable, but social media is often pointed to as the reason for violence flaring up between young people, so lessons could also focus on keeping young people safe online in a way that is relevant to the platforms they use. When I met a number of young people, some children in that conversation did not know how to hide their location—ghosting on Snapchat. One child taught another child, who had been followed and beaten up because their location had been known, how to hide it. With that knowledge, they could hide their location, which was incredibly valuable.
We need an overhaul of how careers advice is delivered in schools, ensuring that diverse role models and relevant work placements are on offer for young people. The serious shortage of diverse role models involved in careers programmes must be addressed. Young students of colour and working-class students need to see people like them in a range of different job roles. They need to know these options are available to them, too. Perhaps we could consider diversity in our history and literature syllabus. History lessons can sometimes feel like most of the people worth learning about were white, rich or male. Is it not time that the curriculum reflected the true diversity of our history?
We need more emphasis on high-quality sex and relationship classes. Primary school students should be taught what healthy and unhealthy relationships look like, to build resilience from a young age. A diverse curriculum is so important. The Government have left cash-strapped schools with no option but to cut creative  subjects from the curriculum. Art, drama and music should not be seen as nice but unnecessary. These subjects are equally important to a well-rounded education.
I think of my own background: I did not get any A to Cs when I was at school, for a multitude of reasons that I will not go into. But I then studied at college, where I did a BTEC in performing arts—some would say that is a natural thing for someone who becomes a politician, but hey-ho—and went on to do drama and business at university. My arts education did not just teach me about the creative subjects; I was taught about history, problem solving and team work, and it got me excited about learning and education.
I could go on. There is so much that I could say about how I think schools could play a greater role in tackling youth violence. But for schools to start truly playing a greater role, there needs to be much more dedicated funding. There needs to be funding for the arts and funding for school nurses and mental health support. There needs to be funding for school police officers and funding for special educational needs. The Government have claimed that austerity is over, but we are seeing no evidence of this on the ground. It will take years to reverse the impacts of the Government austerity agenda.
If we are to try to start to do something and truly look at how we can reduce violence, we must work with and listen to teachers, young people and parents, and all the different agencies that come into contact with young people. In short, we must seek to deliver a public health approach, diagnose the problem, and treat the disease. We need joined-up working among everyone who comes into contact with young people. I welcome the announcement today of a debate on Thursday 13 December on the public health approach to tackling youth violence. I hope that the Minister and her team will come to that debate and at least listen to the contributions, if not report back on it.

Neil O'Brien: One thing we can do to improve standards in schools is to stamp out bullying. I wish to start by talking about an incident in Huddersfield involving a young Syrian refugee, Jamal, and the appalling bullying that he has suffered. Members from all parties will have been appalled by what they have seen. I was particularly appalled because it happened literally two minutes’ walk from where I grew up. I encourage the Minister, in her winding-up speech, to talk a little about that incident and about what the Government are doing to stamp out bullying. I shall come back to the point about order in schools, which is really important. When I saw the video, I was reminded of too much of the disorder that I saw in schools when I was growing up there. It is the same kids and the same problem, and it is important for the agenda of improving standards in education. The one positive thing that I can report is that since the news of this appalling incident went online, people have raised more than £100,000 for the family in a crowdfunding campaign. Some other goods things have happened, such as the Huddersfield Town goalkeeper inviting Jamal to a match. A lot of people are coming together to demonstrate that people in this country are not idiots and are actually kind to refugees and welcome them here.
Much of my speech will be about some of the things that we could change or do differently in education, and I shall start with some positive things. I wish to pay tribute to some important people in the Labour party who have driven the agenda in respect of improving school standards. I pay particular tribute to Andrew Adonis, whose magnificent book on reforming England’s education is an absolute must-read. I was reminded of that book the other day when I read a piece by an education academic slating an unnamed school in, I think, London. This school, it is rumoured online, is Mossbourne Academy, which was used by Andrew Adonis as an example par excellence of what Labour’s academies agenda had achieved. The school, Hackney Downs, had been a failure factory—a disaster area—for working-class kids for generations and it was turned into one of the highest performing schools in the country. This cowardly academic attack on the school, which is not named so the school cannot respond, is full of cod-Marxist jargon. It slates a school that has clearly turned around the lives of thousands and thousands of working-class kids and given them many more opportunities than they would otherwise have had. It was just an appalling piece for Cambridge University to have published.
Let me turn to some of the positives in the education reform agenda. The proportion of pupils in good or outstanding schools, which has already been mentioned, has increased from 66% to 86% since 2010. Good things such as the national fair funding formula have been introduced. In my Leicestershire constituency that is particularly welcome as, historically, it has been very underfunded. Total school funding is going up twice as fast as the national average over the next two years—the first two years of the formula—which is very welcome.

Mike Kane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Neil O'Brien: Of course, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he was so generous in giving way to me.

Mike Kane: I was really kind to the hon. Gentleman the other day when he had forgotten his pass and I let him through one of the doors, but I do not think that he was so kind to me in the debate just now. On that point, will he explain why Leicestershire County Council and schools across the board there are suffering £8.9 million of cuts—that is £104 per pupil since 2015?

Neil O'Brien: I will always be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for opening doors for me. He did ask who I worked for, and I was pleased to say, “The people of Harborough, Oadby and Wigston.” When MPs start to look younger, perhaps it is a sign that one is becoming more mature and statesmanlike. As I said, school funding is going up in Leicestershire, and going up twice as fast as the national average, which is hugely welcome.
The early years agenda has not been neglected. We will have spent a record £6 billion by 2020, covering: the 30 hours free offer, which will be very helpful to many people, the tax-free childcare and, particularly, that extra free childcare for disadvantaged two-year-olds.
In addition to those headline reforms, there have been many other less visible, but hugely important improvements in our schools. One of them has already been mentioned. I believe that it was an important and positive reform when the Government ended the right of appeal against exclusion because that helped to  protect teachers and helps those pupils who want to get on and learn from disruption and violence. I have every sympathy with Labour Members who say that we must improve pupil referral units. I started my contribution by talking about bullying and order in our schools. However, I hope that the Government will not backslide and do anything to weaken schools’ ability to maintain order.
I had a lot of sympathy with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). We must improve provision for those who could be in a pipeline towards prison. I have visited prisons and worked with the homeless. It is absolutely true that some of these people’s careers begin with school exclusion. However, this must not come at the expense of increasing disorder for those who want to learn. Young people do have agency and need to behave responsibly. I am afraid that I do not agree with the idea of a zero exclusions policy, or taking away schools’ freedom to exclude altogether.
Another important reform that is perhaps less visible—

Emma Hardy: I think that the hon. Gentleman may have misinterpreted what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) said. We can have zero exclusions through exploring other policies such as managed moves, or using equality or tenanted provision. Zero exclusions does not necessarily mean that the pupil has to stay in that school. It means that they are not excluded and pushed out of the school system altogether.

Neil O'Brien: I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying that point. My concern is that the goal will quickly lead to a number of policies, some of which she has just alluded to, which bog down schools’ ability to act quickly on disorder and which gum up the works. I sense that that is something about which we disagree but I take her point.
One positive development in recent years has been the growth of low-stakes testing—things such as year 1 phonics screening, which enables us to spot problems early and nip them in the bud. That is one other reason that this country’s performance on primary school reading in the international tables is going up. We are bringing in those kinds of tests. Likewise, the proportion of pupils in the new and improved SATS who are achieving the expected standard in reading, writing and maths has gone up from 54% in 2016 to 64% now. That is a really good example of our teachers and our pupils rising to the challenge when a lot of opponents said that that would be too hard for kids to do.
Another positive development has been ending grade inflation and restoring rigour to our exams. I do not mean to make a partisan point here, but the number of pupils getting three As at A-level doubled under Labour. I do not think that anybody could credibly claim that that was all down to real improvement. There was grade inflation and a drift away from the most hard academic subjects, with the proportion of pupils doing the EBacc at GCSE falling from half in 1997 to 22% in 2010. Therefore, we had a drift away from the most difficult academic subjects and a move towards things such as the computer driving licence, which, because of comparative tables, were scoring huge numbers of points in GCSE  league tables, but in fact were not valuable qualifications. I do not think that the hon. Lady would agree with that approach.

Emma Hardy: I just wondered what the hon. Gentleman’s opinion is on the subjects that are used in the EBacc and whether he thought that it would be crucial for the Government to look again at including perhaps design and technology, considering the comments that the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) made earlier about artificial intelligence, the fourth industrial revolution and the changes to society. Does he not think that perhaps the subjects chosen for the EBacc were chosen on ideological grounds by the Minister, rather than, actually, on what subjects our children need to face an uncertain future?

Neil O'Brien: That was an important intervention from the hon. Lady. I do not agree that those subjects were chosen on ideological grounds. Funnily enough, when we look at the longitudinal earnings and outcomes data, those kind of hard sciences and subjects are the ones that are important gateways to the professions, which will lead to higher earnings. On her point about design and technology, if we were to look again at the subjects and include something else, that would be one of the first things that I would consider.

Luke Graham: My hon. Friend is making a comprehensive speech. He seems to be focusing a lot on England though. Obviously, this is the United Kingdom Parliament and improving educational standards is especially important in Scotland, where our international standards, particularly in maths and science, are falling. We are falling in the international tables, whereas other parts of the UK are rising. It would be interesting to hear—perhaps he will come on to this shortly—why he thinks that is and why Scotland is being left behind, while the rest of the UK is taking a step forward.

Neil O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. I was going to come on to that, but I will deal with it now. Education, and the quality of Scotland’s education system, was Scotland’s pride and joy. This is one of the important things that everyone in the country feels very strongly about. I am from Huddersfield, and all of the rest of my family are from Glasgow, so it is something that we all care about. Not having some of new Labour’s reform agenda in Scotland is one reason why school standards in Scotland have gone off the boil. The other problem, of course, is that because of the decisions on higher education funding of the Scottish National party Government—unfortunately there is no one here from the SNP to represent them—pupils from more deprived areas are now twice as likely to go to university if they are in England than if they are in Scotland. That is a radical unfairness in our country caused by the policies of the SNP Government.
Let me just finish the point about rigour. I will say something which Labour Members may agree with. We can restore rigour—we have done that and it is an important move—without having to have terminal exams. I am quite a supporter of modular exams. Young people’s mental health is an increasingly important issue. Many young people I meet in schools feel strongly about it. There is not necessarily a connection between high  standards in exams and terminal exams. I understand that there are pedagogical arguments for terminal exams, but there are also good arguments for modular ones as well.
One important reform—this is important in the context of improving teacher recruitment and teacher numbers; I am glad that there are 10,000 more teachers than there were in 2010—is to stop Ofsted being excessively overbearing. When I was the chair of governors at a London primary school, I was struck by the way in which everybody was being socialised into jumping every time Ofsted changed some tick box and we were all chasing around after Ofsted. There was a complaint from the Labour Front Bench earlier about some schools not being inspected particularly often by Ofsted. That is part of an approach that focuses on places where there are problems and does not hassle teachers unnecessarily with inspections that do not need to happen. I agree with the Government’s move towards assessing school improvement on progress, data and outcomes, rather than trying to reach into schools with occasional inspections every three years, as if that were the way to drive school improvement. The way towards school improvement is to have high-performing, multi-academy trusts; I will return to that point soon.
I disagree with Opposition Front Benchers about free schools. According to recent data, they are our highest-performing schools on the Progress 8 measure, phonics and key stage 1. One of the important things about free schools is that they allow innovation into our system, and those innovations can be quite different and from different pedagogies. For example, School 21—set up by new Labour adviser Peter Hyman—has a huge focus on oracy, which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) mentioned earlier. That is an interesting innovation. It is a high-performing school from one angle. Michaela Community School, set up by Katharine Birbalsingh, is also a brilliantly high-performing free school that is bringing new ideas into the education agenda, with a strong emphasis on order and discipline. This shows that we can achieve high results in different ways. Free schools have let lots of new ideas into the system that can then percolate through to other schools.

Emma Hardy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should have been greater checks and a more rigorous look at who was applying for free schools in different areas and the level of need? Although he mentioned School 21, of which I am aware, there are many other free schools—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) mentioned—where the money has just been wasted because the schools were not needed or wanted in the first place. Although the hon. Gentleman can point to some successes, surely he agrees that we need a much more rigorous process of assessing free schools and whether they should be built in the first place if this policy is to continue.

Neil O'Brien: I always look for points of agreement, rather than points of disagreement.

Gordon Marsden: You were caught out.

Neil O'Brien: I always look for points of agreement, but the hon. Gentleman is free to shout, “You were caught out”, from a sedentary position. Let me reach over the heads of the chuntering Opposition Front Benchers to say I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle that we must have a good look at all proposals for different types of schools, where they are to be located, where the need is greatest and so on. However, I caution the hon. Lady against the attentions of Her Majesty’s Treasury, where I used to work, because there is always the temptation to say, “We don’t need any new schools. Experimentation is expensive, so let’s just push more people into low-performing schools and keep schools going that are not working.” She will not be surprised to learn that I do not entirely agree with her point on this.
One of the most important changes in our school system is the growth of multi-academy trusts. Some people talk about them as chains, as if schools are supermarkets or part of the market economy, but I think of them as families of schools. I am grateful and glad that Robert Smyth Academy—a school in my constituency that had some problems because of the move from three tiers to two—is now part of a brilliantly high-performing multi-academy trust and has a new, amazing and incredibly dynamic headteacher. I am confident, because of the experience of replicating success, that that school will also be a success.
We have always had miracle schools, super-heads and flashes of inspiration in the school system, but one of the new and exciting things about multi-academy trusts is that those successes are now being replicated at scale. I hope that the Government will push a sort of industrial policy for schools. Let us get behind high-performing multi-academy trusts, think about their geographic distribution around the country and help the best chains to expand in areas of the north and midlands, which are lagging behind in school outcomes.
Of course, this debate goes beyond schools. FE and sixth-form colleges have already been mentioned. If it is acceptable to the House, while we have the education cognoscenti here, I would love to pay tribute to Dr Kevin Conway, who sadly died too young—[Interruption.] I am so sorry.

Mike Kane: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong and honourable point about a really good thinker in education. I hope this intervention will give him time to regroup and get back to his speech.

Neil O'Brien: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he held the door open for me earlier this week, and has done so again verbally today.
Kevin Conway was a guy who turned around Greenhead College—the college I attended—in Huddersfield, which had been rather underperforming. He was a great and totally uncompromising individual who achieved amazing things in my sixth-form college and transformed the lives of generations of people who grew up in Huddersfield.

Luke Graham: My hon. Friend is making a fantastic point about great thinkers in education. Earlier this week, I went to a YouTube event where I was able to see the rapping teacher, who is now getting about 4 million hits a week on some of his online content, which is helping students across the United Kingdom and  internationally to make progress and improve their grade results—something that I am sure my hon. Friend would welcome.

Neil O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening in such a friendly way. The rapping teacher is clearly able to speak in whole finished paragraphs, while I am barely able to articulate a sentence.
I really just wanted to say that Kevin Conway was an inspiration to me and really did amazing things for the town of Huddersfield—the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) was briefly here a moment ago, but has had to go—through his uncompromising approach. He did not have an ideological approach; it was just an insistence on very high standards. Through that great work, he really did change the lives of a lot of people.
Let us move on from the debacle of my attempt to pay tribute to my old principal to a point of policy and boring stuff that I can talk about without welling up. When one visits technical colleges, one always sees the potential. I was in South Leicestershire College just the other day visiting the public services class—the wonderful young people who are going to go off and become firefighters and police officers.
The Government should look again at the whole issue of GCSE resits in FE colleges, because the move to FE and a more work-like environment—I particularly like apprenticeships, but FE is also an important part of the mix—is such an important part of the process for young people who perhaps did not get on with school. These people may have felt like it was not for them and that they were not achieving. The thought behind it was right—that everyone needs a basic grounding in English and maths—but I increasingly think that the GCSE is just not the right thing. Almost everybody who fails it a first time goes on to fail it a second time, and that is very discouraging for young people. It is not the right qualification to ask them to do. Instead, we should look at offering some kind of “maths and English for the citizen” type of qualification.

Emma Hardy: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about GCSE resits. Does he agree with me about the need to look again at functional skills qualifications in FE colleges, which offer a similar level of understanding in maths and English but, as he said, are taught in a different, more vocational way that is suitable for the children attending FE?

Neil O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as she has managed to put the point that I was trying to make more clearly than I was able to.
Opposition Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford have already touched on the issue of funding for sixth-form colleges. Clearly, there is a very odd shape of funding—there is this drop-off at sixth form. On the productivity in our schools and the bad consequences of that, I think sixth-form colleges are actually our most efficient type of school. They achieve the highest results, even though they do not benefit from the £1 billion a year internal transfer within schools as school sixth forms do. It is sort of obvious why they are so effective: instead of having an A-level class with two people in it, there are classes with 30 kids in them, like the classes in the college that I attended. If we changed funding for sixth-form colleges and that stage  of education more generally, it would help to level the playing field, and I think we would see a lot more sixth-form colleges.
I have probably detained the House too long already, but if it is acceptable to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will mention two last things. We have already touched on the issue of smartphones and social media. There is so much potential to improve education. I know that the new Minister at the Department is passionate and is pushing the exciting things that are going on in edu-tech. But it also has the potential to disrupt and cause problems in our classrooms. I am a strong supporter of the idea already mentioned and the work that is going on in the Science and Technology Committee on the effect of smartphones and social media on young people’s mental health. I am a strong supporter of having a national campaign to limit and control the use of smartphones in class. There is an excellent London School of Economics study based on a randomised control trial that shows that there is a substantive increase in GCSE performance in schools that introduced a ban on smartphones in class. I agree with the Government that we should not have a one-size-fits-all national policy —I do not think we should do exactly what France has done—but I would love to see a national campaign to help schools to put in lockers and to adopt other policies to get smartphones out of the classroom, because they can be distracting in class and they are also sometimes distracting at home. Children arrive at school tired because they have been on a Snapchat streaks feature until 1 o’clock in the morning. There is lots of bad practice by our social media companies which are aiming to addict and to take up young people’s attention.
I think that I have covered all the things I wanted to cover in my speech. I am incredibly grateful to the various hon. Members who helped me to get through it.

Emma Hardy: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien). I enjoyed so much of his speech, especially the passionate and kind tribute he paid to his principal. I think that everyone in the House found that extremely moving. He was clearly an inspirational man, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Sadly, I do not know if we are going to continue to agree as I make the rest of my speech—but we started well.
Back in 2011, when I saw the school system that the coalition Government were creating, I remember standing at a rally and asking the question, “In this brave new world of the educational system that the Government are creating, what happens to the children no school wants?” The combination of a high-stakes accountability system and reduced school funding has created a perverse incentive for schools to off-roll and discourage certain children from attending mainstream schools. Parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities are in despair. I am quite sure that every hon. Member here has had parents in their constituency surgery giving them the same story. Some parents are forced into spending thousands of pounds trying to get the resources promised them in their education, health and care plans.
As evidenced by the recent Barnardo’s report, our excluded, or off-rolled, children are vulnerable to becoming involved in criminal activity, or to being exploited or groomed. This is the true educational legacy of the  coalition Government. They wasted billions on ideologically driven pet academy projects, a school curriculum that does not meet the needs of all our children, an accountability system that has destroyed teaching careers and has no way of recognising or valuing inclusive schools, and a school system that fails too many of our most vulnerable children.
Although I am happy to stand here and talk about improving school standards, I will focus on the forgotten children and evaluate what standard of schooling they are getting. For Members who are not aware of this, let me quote the Ofsted definition of off-rolling:
“The practice of removing a pupil from the school roll without a formal, permanent exclusion or by encouraging a parent to remove their child from the school roll, when the removal is primarily in the interests of the school rather than in the best interests of the pupil.”
I have been reading reports about this. Some of the suggested reasons for the rise in off-rolling include unintended incentives through school performance measures such as Progress 8 to remove lower-performing pupils from a school’s score and financial pressures on schools incentivising the removal of some children from the school roll. As I know from having been a teacher, it requires more resource to teach and help to develop children who are not performing as well as others than it does to teach a child who is very quick and understands things very easily.
Our Education Committee report—a cross-party report—said in its recommendations:
“An unfortunate and unintended consequence of the Government’s strong focus on school standards has led to school environments and practices that have resulted in disadvantaged children being disproportionately excluded, which includes a curriculum with a lack of focus on developing pupils’ social and economic capital. There appears to be a lack of moral accountability on the part of many schools and no incentive to, or deterrent to not, retain pupils who could be classed as difficult or challenging.”
That is, let us be honest, a diplomatic way of saying that off-rolling has been caused by the coalition Government’s changes to education since 2010.
We are talking about improving school standards, so let us look at what standard of education these children get—the ones who are kicked out of schools and not wanted. What happens to them? Research by Education Datalab published in January 2017 stated that
“outcomes for all groups of pupils who leave the roll of a mainstream school are poor, with only around 1% of children who leave to state alternative provision or a special school, and 29% of those who leave to a university technical college (UTC) or studio school, achieving five good GCSEs…there exists a previously unidentified group of nearly 20,000 children who leave the rolls of mainstream secondary schools to a range of other destinations for whom outcomes are also very poor, with only 6% recorded as achieving five good GCSEs”.
Who are the children being off-rolled? Ofsted says—it is not Labour saying this:
“Children with special educational needs, children eligible for free school meals, children looked after, and some minority ethnic groups are all more likely to leave their school.”
These children—our neediest children—are being failed by the system that this Government introduced, but there are signs of a fight-back by the profession.
I pay credit to the Association of School and College Leaders, which has recently established the Ethical Leadership Commission as the beginning of a process  to articulate the ethical values that should underpin the UK’s education leaders. I call on the Government to do everything they can to support this and to look again at how the accountability measures can be changed to reward inclusive schools and heads who are genuinely trying to do the right thing.
We have looked at off-rolled children, so now let us look at improving school standards for children with special educational needs and disabilities. What happens to them? The Education Committee, on which I serve, is currently doing an enquiry into SEND, and we have heard powerful evidence from our witnesses. This is what one parent told us:
“I quickly understood the bigger picture, which was that I was dealing with a dysfunctional system of rationing in which the central criterion was which parents could push the hardest. Because I am a reasonably well-educated and well-resourced person who can read nine pages of text and spew out an approximation of them in two minutes…I could just about play the system successfully.”
Good for him, and he got the resources that his son needs, but what about all the children with special educational needs and disabilities whose parents do not know how to fight the system? What happens to them? How much support do they get? They are failed, excluded or encouraged to leave—that is what happens to them.
We cannot have a debate about improving school standards without also talking about funding, because funding matters. Only this week, the Headteachers Roundtable came to give evidence to the Education Committee. One of them, Laura McInerney, said, “Schools cannot afford to be inclusive.” She argued that restricted funding means that schools cannot afford crucial pastoral support for their children, and this is one of the main drivers behind exclusions. I do not think that schools have suddenly become crueller or teachers have suddenly become more unkind, but I know as a teacher that if I have 30 children in my class, I have problem behaviour with one or two of them and I have no resource in the rest of the school to support me with them, of course I am not going to want those children in my classroom.
We should be saying to schools, “Here are the resources to provide the pastoral support. Here are the resources to help those children deal with anger through anger management to enable them to stay in a mainstream setting.” These are the people who have gone, because when the funding cuts bite, schools cannot take away the teacher in front of the children in the classroom, so what do they do? I know that this happens in every constituency around the country—although I accept, looking at the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), that I do not know as much about Scotland. Pastoral support and teaching assistants go—that is what happens.
On 6 September this year, the National Association of Head Teachers published the results of a survey on SEND funding. Only 2% of respondents said that the top-up funding they received was sufficient to meet individual education, health and care plans or statements for pupils with SEND—just 2% got enough money to support children with special needs in their schools—and 94% said they were finding it harder to resource the support required than they did two years ago.
Katie Moore, the principal of Fullbrook School in the Chancellor’s constituency, recently gave an interview, because the Chancellor had visited her school and she wanted to talk about the impact of the cuts. She said:
“He saw on his visit to Fullbrook that we are desperate for enough money to support the basics”—
let alone the children with SEND—
“of our students’ curriculum and the fundamentals of a good education, not just what he described as ‘little extras’. We need an increase to ongoing core funding that addresses the cost of teachers and support staff. We need to close the funding gap left by the 8% real-terms cuts over the last five years that schools in his constituency and around the country are unable to meet.”
It is impossible to discuss improving school standards without addressing the basic need for increased funding of our schools. I want to pay tribute to the brave headteachers who have taken part in the “Worth Less?” campaign for more funding for their pupils. I was involved in the demonstrations back in 2011 with other teachers against what was happening to my profession, so I know that it is unprecedented for headteachers to march on Downing Street. Two thousand of them came, and they did not come waving banners and placards or blowing whistles, although part of me wishes they did. They came to simply ask the Government, “Give us enough money for our schools.”

Luke Graham: The hon. Lady says that those protests were unprecedented, but they have also been happening in Glasgow, where the pay award for teachers and headteachers is seen as insufficient. This is not a particular problem in her part of the United Kingdom, but right across it.

Emma Hardy: I would always argue for more funding for schools right across the United Kingdom, and the hon. Gentleman would have my support in arguing for that.
Let us look at what some schools that do not have the staffing resources are doing. If there is a problematic pupil in a classroom and a school does not have the resources—the pastoral support, the anger management and all the people I have mentioned—to deal with them, what does the school do? I am sure colleagues across the House know about the increasing use of isolation rooms for extended periods. I believe that this is partly fuelled by the need for a cheap solution to problematic behaviour. Schools do not have the resources to address the causes of the behaviour, so they treat the symptoms.
Even if we think, “Those kids deserve it. Put them in isolation—it’s good for them,” or some other macho comment that comes out from the Government every now and again, we surely cannot believe that these children are getting any kind of quality educational experience. In fact, the evidence shows that they are being given generic online resources instead of equivalent work, so while these children are in isolation, they might as well not be in school at all. They are missing weeks of learning. How will that help them? How will that improve schools standards?
I want to conclude by saying that it does not have to be this way. With adequate funding and local authority resourcing, local experts could come into schools and provide the crucial services that local authorities used to offer. I hope the hon. Member for Harborough agrees with me. All the specialists who are needed—speech therapists, educational psychologists, education welfare officers, school social workers; I could go on—could be provided at local authority level, to come into schools and support every child.
We could also look at reducing the demand for education, health and care plans by providing school-level support. I know from our Education Committee inquiry that one of the reasons parents are so desperate to get EHC plans is that they see it as a passport to accessing the funding and resourcing they need, but if we gave schools the money to start with, parents would not need to drag themselves to a tribunal and spend thousands of pounds trying to fight the system. They would have what their child needs in the school right there and then.
Fundamentally, we need to reform our accountability measures. We need to look at how we as a society can say to schools that include all children in their area, “We reward and recognise that you’re doing that, and we think it’s a good thing” because the current system does not. We should also get rid of the £6,000 notional funding for SEND and enable schools to have the money from the very beginning, rather than make them spend that first £6,000.
When I am told that education standards are improving, as I was when I sat and listened to the Minister for half an hour at the beginning of the debate, my challenge is: include all the children—add them all in. Let us look at every single one of them. How good does our system look if we include all the children who have been excluded, all the children who have been off-rolled, all the children in alternative provision and all the children who have been electively home-educated? Let us put them all in the mix—now tell me the coalition Government have done a good job.
If we want to improve education standards for all pupils, we need to break with the coalition’s ideology of the past and create and reward inclusive schools that are well-funded, well-resourced to provide the necessary support for all pupils and with the curriculum flexibility to adapt to every child’s need. We have the answer to the question I asked in 2011. The children that no school wants are rejected, marginalised, failed and left vulnerable to criminal activity. We reap what we sow, and it is time to change.

Theresa Villiers: It is a pleasure to take part in a debate on such an important issue and to follow the powerful speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy).
I would like to start by praising the hard work of teachers, governors and support staff in schools in my constituency. I am deeply grateful for the work they do. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) agrees, we are very lucky in the borough of Barnet to have some of the best state schools in the country. I particularly commend Totteridge Academy, which I visited recently for its democracy day. I am always hugely impressed by the students I meet in schools in my constituency, including Totteridge Academy, which had an immensely successful democracy day, engaging students in a range of activities to encourage participation in politics.
I welcome the expansion of school places in Barnet as part of the Government’s delivery of around 800,000 more school places—the biggest expansion for well over 30 years. I very much agree that providing the best education for children and young people is a huge engine of social mobility. Great educational opportunities  are essential if we are to give young people the chance to get on in life and make a success of their lives. A good education is crucial. That means that raising standards in education and improving schools are vital parts of delivering social justice and social mobility.
It is welcome that there are now so many more children—1.9 million—studying in good or outstanding schools than eight years ago, when the Conservatives returned to office. Under the last Labour Government, England slipped down the international league tables in reading, maths and science, but that trend has been reversed, as shown by a number of international benchmarks. For example, the progress in international reading literacy study shows that pupils in England are now outperforming their peers in many countries, including Canada, Australia and the United States.

Richard Graham: My right hon. Friend is making an important point about how crucial it is that there are opportunities for our young in schools, more and more of which are rated good or outstanding. Does she agree that that can happen in areas that are described as deprived? Robinswood Primary Academy, Tredworth Junior School, Finlay Community School and Coney Hill Community Primary School in my constituency are all great examples of outstanding primary schools in difficult areas. With the right leadership and the right support from Government, it can be done.

Theresa Villiers: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. One of the impressive aspects of the improvements in education over recent years is that so many of them have been seen in areas with high levels of deprivation. The improvement of schools in London is an important illustration of that, with schools supporting children from diverse backgrounds and, in some instances, very disadvantaged backgrounds. They have been some of the really striking success stories of recent years. As he says, it is absolutely possible, indeed essential, to ensure that improvements in schools and school standards deliver for those communities.

Emma Hardy: I am sure the right hon. Lady is just about to recognise the work that was done under the previous Labour Government called the London challenge, which encouraged and supported heads working together. I agree that that led to a fundamental change and improvement in education outcomes for pupils living in London.

Theresa Villiers: There were aspects of the Labour Government’s approach to education with which I did not agree, but I agree that they did have some real success. That was at its most obvious in many of the London boroughs, so the hon. Lady makes a fair point about that project.
One of the main reasons for the improvement in school standards in recent years is the emphasis that the Conservatives have put on ensuring that children are taught to read using the most effective methods. Thanks to the hard work of teachers and the Government’s drive for phonics, the results of the phonics screening test introduced in 2012 have improved significantly.
As we have already heard in today’s debate, efforts have been made to tackle grade inflation. In the Blair-Brown years, employer and university confidence in the school  exam system was eroded. The reforms made by this Government and their coalition predecessor to make GCSEs and A-levels tougher and more rigorous are bearing fruit. The exams are now more stretching for students, ensuring that they have a better grounding for further study or indeed for life in the workplace. I for one particularly welcome the increased focus on good spelling and grammar, which I think are important life skills for any young person.
The striking improvement in schools over recent years means that state schools are now beginning to catch up with the independent sector, as acknowledged in evidence cited by Professor Alan Smithers, director of the centre for education and employment research at the University of Buckingham. Even more importantly, the attainment gap between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and other students has closed by 10% since 2010.
It is important to highlight that an effective way of improving standards in schools is to ensure that we have the best possible early years education. Delivering high-quality early years and pre-school education can play an incredibly positive role in improving educational standards in schools, but also in delivering social mobility and opportunity. Research demonstrates that if children fall behind in the early years, many simply never catch up. Their life chances can be permanently blighted by being held back at that early stage.
I would always urge Ministers to have a strong focus on helping parents access the highest-quality affordable early years education and support. The reformed early years foundation stage profile will have an important role to play in that. I hope the Minister will update the House on progress on that initiative when she sums up the debate.

Emma Hardy: I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Lady about the importance of early years education, and I hope she will agree with me about the importance of maintained nursery provision and maintained nursery schools. Will she urge the Government to make sure that any reforms they introduce do not have a negative effect on what is proven to be a very successful way of helping our youngest children?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Lady anticipates something I am going to come on to—I am going to talk about the maintained nursery sector.
Across the board in early years provision, we need to ensure that we provide the best training and professional development opportunities for people working in the sector, to increase their ability to support children’s early speech and language development. While considering the important issue of early years, I would like to look at the issues involving the maintained nursery school sector. There are a number of maintained nursery schools in my constituency, which are grouped into the Barnet Early Years Alliance. As the Minister and others in the Chamber will know, when the early years national funding formula was introduced in 2017, the Government agreed to maintain level funding for maintained nursery schools up until 2019-20, through a block of supplementary funding of about £59 million a year. However, there is currently no certainty after 2020, which leaves the maintained nursery schools sector unable to plan and budget for the future, so its status is uncertain.
As the hon. Lady has just done, I emphasise that many maintained nursery schools deliver excellent education, including those in BEYA in my constituency. It is important for the Government to ensure that they find a new sustainable role for maintained sector nursery schools as centres of excellence and training. I know that work has been undertaken on this, but we are getting to the stage when decisions need to be made about the future status of these schools. I urge the Minister to consider that, as well, in responding to my remarks. We are getting perilously close to the point at which funding for the maintained sector is due to come to an end, and we need to ensure that we have a settled future for these schools.
I turn to vocational education and training. For many decades, successive Governments have tried to improve technical education, but I think we would all acknowledge that they have had pretty mixed results. For example, the Wolf review concluded that when Labour was in power at least 350,000 young people were let down by courses that had
“little or no labour market value.”
I think we would all agree that delivering excellence in technical education is crucial for any modern economy to be successful, but somehow this prize seems to have eluded us in this country.
I very much hope that the T-levels programme, which this Government are pioneering, will mark a turning point. The investment in these new qualifications runs to hundreds of millions, and I welcome that. I urge the Government to do everything they can to ensure that these new qualifications become high-quality, credible and successful alternatives to the traditional academic path in education. One of the most important tasks for our education system as a whole is to ensure that we provide the opportunity for young people to take on technical education and thrive as a result.

Richard Graham: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of vocational education. Does she agree with me that while we have had terrific success in driving up the number of people in our constituents who are taking on apprenticeships, the bulk of this work is being done through further education collages, which since 2010 have in effect had two cuts and a freeze? The recent increases to their teachers’ pay and pensions are not covered by the Treasury; they have to meet those costs themselves. Does she agree that it would be very helpful if the Minister addressed this issue, which I believe is one of underfunding in our further education colleges?

Theresa Villiers: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the further education sector is crucial, as we have already heard in the debate, and we need to make sure that it has the resources it needs. I am sure the Minister will have taken on board the points that he has made, and I hope she will respond to them in her concluding remarks.
My hon. Friend is right that further education colleges, working alongside employers, are playing an important role in the delivery of apprenticeships, which is another reason why it is an important sector. I will close by saying a few words about apprenticeships, because they are so crucial in giving young people the skills they need to get on in life. About 3 million have been delivered since 2010, and we need to keep up that record in the future.
There is general acknowledgment that the apprenticeship levy has had some teething problems, and I very much hope that the changes announced in the recent Budget will help to remedy them and give more young people the chance to participate in an apprenticeship. However, apprenticeships have been a real success story. They have become longer and better, and they include more off-the-job training to complement the learning that takes place in the workplace; hence the role for the further education sector that my hon. Friend has just highlighted.

Emma Hardy: Again, I agree with the right hon. Lady about the importance of apprenticeships. The Education Committee recently did an inquiry into apprenticeships, and one thing that came out of that—I would like to know her thoughts on it—was the need for greater regulation to ensure that young apprentices are not exploited or paid less than the apprenticeship minimum wage. Does she agree that although many fantastic employers are doing the right thing, there should be greater regulation to ensure that everyone who does an apprenticeship has a high-quality learning experience?

Theresa Villiers: I agree that a successful apprenticeships programme is not just about quantity; it is also about quality, and we must ensure consistency in the training that comes with an apprenticeship. I would be delighted to read the report to which the hon. Lady refers. There probably is a case for stricter regulation in that area—the Minister will also have heard that point—and we must ensure good quality control so that young people thrive as a result of apprenticeships and are not in any sense exploited.

Richard Graham: This is a very interesting point. Those of us who have had apprentices, as I have for the past seven years, know that the minimum apprenticeship wage is exactly that—a minimum—and the vast majority of people will pay significantly more. My right hon. Friend was right to mention the number of employers with which some further education colleges engage on apprenticeships. I was amazed to hear the other day that Gloucestershire College is now working with 1,112 employers. I think the Minister visited that college last year, and she will be interested to hear that it has just launched a cyber-security apprenticeship, which is a further example of innovation by that sector. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no limit to how many new types of apprenticeship we can continue to create when there is demand in the workplace?

Theresa Villiers: I certainly agree with that last point, and I welcome the apprenticeship in cyber-security to which my hon. Friend referred. I am a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, and we recently published a report that highlighted big skills gaps in cyber-security, so I am pleased that Gloucestershire College is helping to fill those gaps.
My hon. Friend emphasises the role of the further education sector, but we must also recognise the great potential for the higher education and university sectors regarding apprenticeships. Middlesex University, near my constituency, is pioneering degree apprenticeships that combine the academic and technical in an innovative new form that could appeal to many young people. Apprenticeships deliver the combined benefit of broadening  opportunities for young people while also improving the skills base for our economy to make us more competitive in the global race for jobs and investment.

Emma Hardy: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Theresa Villiers: I think I will conclude my remarks now.
A successful apprenticeships programme is vital for a thriving economy. If we are to be serious about social mobility and social justice, as I believe Members in all parts of the House are, and about ensuring that everyone can go as far as their talents and hard work will take them, and if we want to make this a country that works for everyone, the subject that we are debating is crucial. To give children in this country the best start in life we need excellent schools, great teaching, rigorous exams and the best technical education we can offer. I will be working to ensure that we achieve all those goals, and I urge the Government to do the same.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and to hear contributions from other Members about improving education standards across the whole United Kingdom. The Minister has responsibility only for England and Wales, but I wish to put on the record in Hansard some of the excellent education achievements from Northern Ireland. Although the Minister does not have direct responsibility for the improvements we are seeking, I still wish to put my points on the record.
It will not be a secret in this House that this is another great day on which I am proud to hail from Northern Ireland and be the Member of Parliament for Strangford. I also wish to put on the record my thanks to all the principals, teachers, care staff and kitchen staff, and all those who work in the schools and education system in my constituency and across Northern Ireland, with all its collective and different strands, including state schools, integrated schools, or the Catholic-controlled maintained schools. They are all doing an excellent job, as indeed are the faith schools.
On days like this, I am able completely to dispel the label that is often attached to those of us from Northern Ireland. Earlier the Minister referred to languages, and yesterday in the Jubilee Room near Westminster Hall, there was a modern languages event held by the Open World Research Initiative. Queen’s University Belfast was represented at that event, as were some other universities, and it is important to realise the importance of languages and how they can open up the world and provide opportunities and jobs for students.
This year, again, results in Northern Ireland outstripped those on the mainland and, with respect, in recent years students from Northern Ireland have outperformed their counterparts in England and Wales. In 2017, for instance, A* or A grades were achieved by more than three in 10—30.4%—of Northern Ireland entries. There have been big changes to A-levels in England with reduced or no coursework in some subjects, and exams alone determining results. AS-levels no longer count towards the final A-level grade in England. That is not the case in Northern Ireland, where AS-level results still count towards the final A-level grade. More than three-quarters  of A-levels in Northern Ireland are taken through the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations & Assessment, and the rest of the entries are taken through a variety of English and Welsh exam boards.
Exam results this year have been excellent, and I declare an interest as one of the governors in a school in my constituency, Glastry College. Its results were excellent, as were many results across my constituency and Northern Ireland. The number of A* to C grades rose by just under 1% to 81.1%, around one in 10 entries received the top A* grade, and 85.1% of entries from girls achieved A* to C grades. The proportion of entries from boys achieving those grades was slightly lower at 76.9%. There was also a significant rise of almost 5% in the number of girls taking science, technology, engineering and maths—other Members have mentioned that point in their contributions. We were greatly encouraged by the interest shown in those STEM subjects, which now account for 43% of all GCSE entries. A total of 8.4% of entries from boys resulted in an A* grade, compared with 8% for girls. Again, that is a vast improvement and step forward.
Girls in Northern Ireland still outperform boys overall, although the gap is closing. The percentage of entries achieving A* or A grades remained unchanged from last year at 30.4%, but the overall A* to E pass rate at A-level in Northern Ireland decreased slightly to 98.2%. Those are significant figures that show that the education system in Northern Ireland has achieved much. We could, however, perhaps do more when it comes to improving educational standards, and I will outline why.
In Northern Ireland the grades are great, but it is difficult to see how long that can continue without an Education Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is not currently functioning as it should. We need someone to step up and step in. Our schools are massively struggling with budget cuts—a cut of £40,000 for a small country school means the loss of a teacher, which is the death knell for any small school. Teachers are increasingly attempting to source and buy their own resources so that their pupils have the necessary learning tools. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is carrying out an inquiry into education and health in Northern Ireland, because those are two of the most pertinent and important social issues at this moment. A doctor is not expected to purchase morphine, so why are teachers buying craft items out of their own pockets? That is happening is schools across Northern Ireland. It might be happening elsewhere as well—I suspect it is.
I was proud and yet annoyed that in one small local school, Carrickmannon Primary School, the teachers and parent-teacher association bag packed on a Saturday to raise money for a new computer whiteboard that could not be sourced from the education authorities because the monies are not there. I am proud because of the school spirit that saw teachers giving up more of their free time to pack people’s bags out of a love for their school, yet annoyed that the school was in such dire straits that it had no option other than to ask the local community for help. Again, these are some of the things that are happening.
It is absurd that the school had to do that. There is a pot of funding for other purposes such as allowing children to go on cross-community school trips, yet they come back to schools with wonky chairs and  no glue. We need someone in place at Stormont to review budgets and allocate funding appropriately. Failing that, if the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could take some time out—I say this with respect; she is not in her place—of her propaganda tour of Northern Ireland businesses to address this issue, I would be intensely appreciative. I know with certainty that every parent in Northern Ireland would be incredibly grateful, too, if we could find ourselves with an education system that can transcend the financial cuts.
The education authority has analysed the financial position of about 1,000 schools for 2018-19. Its figures show that 446 schools are projected to be in the red in 2018. Let us be clear that that is not due to any mismanagement or frivolous spending. The Northern Ireland Audit Office has said that school budgets have been reduced by 10% in real terms over the past five years, so how can they be expected to continue to meet the budget while improving education standards? That is what this debate is about. I have boasted and bragged over our results in Northern Ireland, but I know with certainty that this cannot continue in underfunded schools—this disgrace must be addressed.
We must all acknowledge—other hon. Members have referred to this—that school is about more than grades. It is about life experience and helping children to find out what they are good at and can excel at. It is about encouraging them to do better, making their minds work creatively and initiating their abilities. It is about granting a child a love of music through free lessons that their parents could never afford to provide. It is about encouraging children to be active with after-school sports clubs by providing equipment and teaching skills. These are the things that build character and personality for the jobs they will have in the future. All that is affected by budget cuts. One of my local schools has had to stop employing its music teacher and the after-school programme due to lack of funding. I feel intensely frustrated when I see something good having to stop. Teachers are already not paid for additional work, such as replacing whiteboards and buying craft materials to make learning interesting. Now schools are being forced to cut teachers or make them take on even more responsibilities. Something has got to give and my fear is that it will be educational standards and the quality we have to offer. Considering the results we have in Northern Ireland, it would be a terrible pity if we in any way inhibit them.
The results show that Northern Ireland has the best—I say this with respect to the Minister and to every right hon. and hon. Member in the Chamber—education system in whole of the UK.

Theresa Villiers: There is much debate and commentary about the divisions in education in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one positive recent development in schools in Northern Ireland is the concept of the shared school, where different types of schools work closely together from across the traditional divide?

Jim Shannon: I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. She has knowledge of Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, I am on the board of governors for Glastry College. The college works alongside St Columba’s in Portaferry, the Catholic maintained school, the Strangford Integrated College in Strangford, and other grammar  schools in Bangor and Newtownards. They come together to put on classes that they would not otherwise be able to hold individually because of the cost. There are a lot of examples of that kind of working. I know about them personally in my constituency and I know they exist across the whole of Northern Ireland.
I believe Northern Ireland has the best education system in the whole of the United Kingdom. That will not continue without funding and a capable Minister to oversee it. Stormont may be silent, but the hon. Member for Strangford will not be silent when it comes to speaking up for our education system, whether in this House or elsewhere. We need help and we need attention, and we need it now before we lose the potential of a generation of children. They could suffer as a result of what is happening.
Northern Ireland education is not the responsibility of the Minister on the Front Bench. As a devolved matter, it is not the direct responsibility of this House. However, I ask the Minister to speak to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Education permanent secretary in Northern Ireland to save the education of my grandchildren and every other child in Northern Ireland.

Matthew Offord: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
I welcome this debate as it gives me the opportunity to comment on school standards and how, in the London Borough of Barnet, they are being affected by the number of school places and the ability of headteachers to attract qualified teachers. I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) is in her place. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) has had to leave for a Whips’ meeting, but he said he would attend this debate so he could hear what was said, particularly about Barnet.
It is fundamentally a given that we need teachers to undertake the teaching in our schools, and we need places and spaces in which to teach our children. I think it is a given that we can all agree on that point. I want to focus on those two areas, which both impact directly on school standards. My constituency of Hendon lies within the London Borough of Barnet. As the education provider, Barnet Council has established its strategic vision of education:
“Resilient schools, resilient communities: we want Barnet to be the most successful place for high quality education where excellent school standards result in all children achieving their best, being safe and happy and able to progress to become successful adults.”
Usually, I do not buy into woolly mission statements, but in this case the council has got it absolutely right. It has established what that vision looks like: a shared mission to ensure that every child attends a good or outstanding school. Once again, I think everyone here can agree with that. That is a sensible and laudable ambition.
Barnet is different from some local authorities in that the attainment and progress of children in Barnet schools is within the top 10% nationally, and that the progress of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable pupils is accelerated in order to close the gap between them and their peers. Some may say that Barnet and Hendon are a rich part of London, but I would say that, economically,  it is very diverse. I have areas where people certainly live in £1 million houses. In other areas, however, the median income is very low. We therefore educate a wide range of children from different social classes. For Barnet to do that is already a great achievement.
Along with the need to focus on the attainment and progress of all pupils and deliver the strategy, there has to be sufficient provision in the borough for all children and young people. The provision needs to be of the highest quality both in terms of school buildings and teachers. The Minister was kind enough to see me on the latter point several months ago and is therefore aware that this is a significant problem in my constituency and in the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green. Indeed, it is a problem across much of London, where teacher recruitment and retention is a major challenge due to high housing and living costs.
Many schools, such as Colindale primary in my constituency, which has been rated as good by Ofsted under the leadership of Lucy Rogers, rely on teachers from Commonwealth countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. They invest time and money in these teachers only to lose them because they cannot reach the points required for a tier 2 visa. I also brought this point to the Minister’s attention. Schools are then either left struggling with less than a full complement of teachers or buying in services from agencies, which is very expensive. However good the teachers may be, teaching and learning inevitably become disjointed and inconsistent, and the ultimate result is a fall in standards.
The Minister said in his opening remarks that more money has been invested in schools to promote standards. This is correct, but the amount per pupil has actually declined, because of the increased number of pupils on roll. Schools in my constituency, and indeed all those in the London Borough of Barnet, face an additional issue, which is the formula that allows additional resources for so-called inner-London boroughs. This anachronistic financial mechanism ensures that Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Camden, City of London, Ealing, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth and Westminster all receive a greater amount of resources, which allows their schools to make additional payments to their teachers. This ensures that teaching is more financially attractive in inner-London schools. Consequently, schools in Hendon are in direct competition with schools in neighbouring boroughs such as Camden and Brent, which are better funded and so able to pay higher salaries.
The NASUWT website advises that a newly qualified teacher at an inner-London school should receive a starting salary of £28,660, compared with £26,662 for a school in Hendon, which is a difference of £1,998. If a newly qualified teacher is offered a position at two schools, one in an inner-London borough and one in an outer-London borough, it is pretty obvious which one they will choose. I presume that the inner and outer-London designation is a legacy of the old Inner London Education Authority, but I gently suggest to the Minister that, 28 years after its wise abolition, it is time to abolish  these designations. People living in one part of London pay the same costs as those in another, while all face the disproportionate cost of living in London compared with the rest of the country. Schools across London, including mine in Colindale, can have 15 or more languages spoken by pupils, so it is no longer an issue for inner-London schools only, and many of the issues that bedevilled the ILEA have now spread to outer-London boroughs.
Under this Government, the number of teachers has not kept pace with increasing pupil numbers. The number of pupils per qualified teacher has increased from 17.8 five years ago to 18.7 last year. Most worryingly, the recruitment of initial teacher trainees has been below target in each year since 2012, with wide variations across subjects. In addition, the numbers of full-time teacher vacancies and temporarily filled posts have both risen since 2011. Overall, pupil numbers are expected to continue rising, with the number of secondary school pupils projected to increase by 15% between 2018 and 2025.
That brings me to my second point: school places. Two years ago, the BBC reported on a projection of school places based on a population bulge. It showed that the primary population was 4.5 million and predicted it would rise to 4.68 million by 2020, when it would stabilise. It suggested, however, that the next big increase would be in secondary schools, where the population was projected to rise from 2.76 million pupils to 3.04 million in 2020 and then 3.33 million in 2025. This is a particular problem in the London Borough of Barnet. The previous Labour Government prioritised secondary schools through the Building Schools for the Future programme but left us in Barnet to ensure the provision of schools places under our own primary schools capital investment programme.
It was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green and I, as leader and deputy leader of the council respectively, to resolve the issue. We did this through PSCIP, an innovative programme whereby we released land for residential development while investing the resources raised into the schools programme. I was fortunate to end up being the cabinet member overseeing the projects, and I was proud to oversee the construction of several schools, including Fairway, Orion, Parkfield and Broadfields in Hendon, as well as receiving Beit Shvidler into the voluntary aided sector.
It is important to note that the programme has ensured that since 2009 more than 9,000 additional permanent school places have been established in the London Borough of Barnet. That is as a result of central and local government investment. Barnet is now one of London’s most populous boroughs and has ambitious plans to grow further through the regeneration of areas such as Brent Cross, Colindale and West Hendon. It is also appropriate to note that of these 9,000 places 4,751 have been introduced in the Hendon constituency. I am very proud of that and pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and the current council leader, Richard Cornelius, for their work.
In order to maintain standards, we must ensure that every child attends a good or outstanding school, and so must continue this work in my constituency. It may be parochial, but I am keen to acknowledge for the record the hard work done in the last decade. In four wards—Colindale, West Hendon, Burnt Oak and Hendon—investment in the schools of Colindale, Orion, Blessed Dominic, St Mary’s and St John’s, Menorah  Foundation, St Joseph’s and the Watling Park Free School is meeting current demand. That said, a shortfall is likely to emerge again this year as new housing is completed in the Colindale area. In the Hale, Mill Hill and Edgware wards, additional places have been provided at Broadfields, Beit Shvidler, Etz Chaim, Millbrook Park and the London Academy, and we hope that there is enough capacity in those schools to achieve the necessary provision for local children.
The success in the primary schools sector is now filtering through into the secondary schools. St Mary’s and St John’s in Hendon expanded provision last year, but St James’s Catholic High School and Mill Hill have had to offer a bulge class, which is not in the best interests of the schools in the longer term. It is predicted by the local authority that from next year until 2023, with no new school provision, we will be looking at a shortfall of 429 places next year, 406 the following year, 540 the year after, and 680 in 2023.
Fortunately, St James’s Catholic High School has expanded by two forms of entry and Saracens High School is due to open in Colindale, so they will alleviate some of the problems, but I make a plea to the Minister. The Government have approved Compton Free School’s application to open a new sixth-form entry in Barnet, but the Department for Education has not identified a site. On the request and advice of Mill Hill councillor Val Duschinsky, I propose that the site being vacated at the Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall on the Ridgeway in Mill Hill be considered as suitable.
In my maiden speech, I spoke about aspiration and said that if aspirations were not raised, the local people would be on a downward trajectory. It has already been said how education provides social mobility. I certainly agree. We must ensure the best possible school provision in places such as Barnet if we are to achieve the social mobility we want to see across the country, and although the Government have made good progress, having raised the figure from 66% to 84%, we need to ensure that that work continues and that no child is left behind.
I genuinely appreciate the work of teachers and all those employed in the education sector. One of the best things about being MP for Hendon is visiting its schools, not only engaging in things such as the Schools Meal Week and Democracy Week, as I did recently, but hearing what children want to do with their lives. As a child, I never had a single good teacher—I cannot recall a single good teacher—but rather than feeling resentful, I want to ensure that the pupils and young people in my area have good teachers and schools, and good life chances.

Gordon Marsden: It is a great pleasure and privilege not just to follow the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) but to praise the high standard of the speeches from Back Benchers and, indeed, from my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)—we will come to the Schools Minister shortly.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) gave a thoughtful speech covering a wide range of areas. He was right to talk about the pressure from social media on teachers and students, 16-to-19 funding and soft skills—I prefer to call them enabling skills, because I have found that if we talk to officials and others about  soft skills, they put us down the register a bit. However, I entirely agree with everything he said, including about readiness for work, although it would have been easier for many schools if the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when he was Education Secretary, had not scrapped the key stage 4 obligation on work experience as part of the curriculum.
I want to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who cannot be in her place because she has a meeting with the Children’s Commissioner, but who made a passionate speech about the importance of tackling school violence. She talked about staggering hours in schools and the involvement of the police. From my experience in Blackpool, I can say only that the more we can get the police involved with young people out of school as well as in it, the more we will be doing the right sorts of things. She, too, talked about social media pitfalls.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) rightly referred to the horrific incident in Huddersfield. He then talked about the importance of quick early interventions and I agree with him, but I do not always think that that means reaching for the test; it often means reaching for a decent teacher. I also want to praise—I am sure the whole House will agree—the poignant tribute that he paid to his principal. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) said that he did not have a single good teacher, but I think that most of us can remember, from some stage in our life, somebody who got that spark going, so all credit to the hon. Member for Harborough for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) made a very powerful speech about the strong attachments and perverse incentives for schools to off-roll, and we heard that from others as well. She rightly raised the issue of SEN and disabilities. Incidentally, I have concerns in my constituency about the issue of off-rolling with regard to pupil referral units, as I am sure that many other hon. Members here do. She also mentioned, very importantly, pastoral support for teaching assistants.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) talked about the importance of having opportunities for teaching language skills. She talked about the maintained nurseries sector and mentioned Middlesex University in the context of degree apprenticeships. A couple of weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to go to the Skills Show, at the same time as the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, and I bumped into the people from Middlesex University, who of course brought their robot to the Education Committee. We were told by one or two members of the Committee that he had made more sense than some of the other people who had come before them previously.

Richard Graham: Just to go from robots back to excluded pupils for one second, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a really feasible quick fix on this would be to ensure that, if schools exclude pupils, they should be responsible for their results at the end of the year? Does he not agree that that would result in a sharp reduction?

Gordon Marsden: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but the fact is that we know that 10,000 people are off-rolled. At this stage in the proceedings, I think that we need to bell the cat, but I take his point.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly drew attention to the different system in Northern Ireland, including the results in secondary school qualifications, and his concerns about small schools having to buy basic materials.
Finally, the hon. Member for Hendon talked about the diverse nature of his constituency and, very interestingly, about outer-London issues and tier 2 visas. I had the privilege of living in Golders Green for two years as a postgraduate. I am not sure whether that is in his constituency, but it is very near it, so I understand what he said about the difference between the Brent Cross and west Hendon areas, and I know, even after a long period, that those differences remain.
Educational standards are a priority across all ages and all sectors. They are not made in a day, but young people must be able to have a good start in life. That is why we need to focus on those early years, yet this Government have a hugely patchy record in that area. I am afraid that the Schools Minister did not even mention early years in his speech. My colleagues the shadow Education Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) have tirelessly argued against this Government’s record. Research by the Sutton Trust shows that over 1,000 Sure Start centres have been lost since 2010. More centres are operating on a part-time basis and the number of services has fallen. Parents are paying the price for that and for the Government underfunding the 30-hour offer. According to the Pre-school Learning Alliance, only around one third of childcare providers are delivering 30-hour places completely free.
On Sure Starts, in my constituency in Blackpool, where we have had huge cuts in local government funding, we have had to bear the brunt of this. I remember a Sure Start in Mereside where I met a young woman three times: the first time, she was using the Sure Start; the second time, she had graduated to being an assistant at the Sure Start; and the third time, she was training to be a primary school teacher. That sort of progression has been lost in the hollowing out of Sure Starts by the Government.

Emma Hardy: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gordon Marsden: No, I will not, I am afraid, because I am very short of time. If standards are rising for the cohorts that the Government have talked about, some of that is significantly down to the achievement of the Labour Government before 2010, not to a succession of post-2010 Tory-led Governments that have savaged Sure Starts, while undermining their funding and purpose at every turn. They have done the same with further education colleges.
The financial position of the colleges over the past 10 years, as the Association of Colleges tells us, is that they have had to deal with an average funding cut of 30%, while costs have increased dramatically. Funding for students aged 16 to 18 has been cut by 8% in real terms since 2010. It is entirely right that the chief inspector of Ofsted, writing to the Public Accounts Committee, said the other week:
“My strong view is that the government should use the forthcoming spending review to increase the base rate for 16 to 18 funding.”
Cash has led directly to falling standards in FE.
As we know, the position is similar in other areas. Funding for sixth-form colleges, for example, was subject to deep cuts in 2011 and 2013, and the national funding rate for 16 to 17-year-olds remains frozen at £4,000. I have seen these problems in my own area. The fantastic Blackpool Sixth Form College, which has done brilliant work in the 20-odd years for which I have been the local MP, has also felt the chill wind of the Government’s deliberate policies on austerity. It has had to cut Business and Technology Education Council courses, and wonders, rather sceptically, about T-levels. At the same time, however, it has managed to maintain variety, and outstanding classical civilisation courses are delivered by an outstanding teacher, Peter Wright.
The same applies to higher education. Universities UK says in a briefing that it sent to me for this debate that it estimates from the media reports of the Government’s review that the cut in tuition fees would lead, without replacement, to “significant cuts in universities”. However, this is not just about cuts, but about the other moves that are being suggested. There are concerns about varying fee levels. The Chancellor seems keen to introduce STEM fees, which increase the disincentive for many disadvantaged students, ignoring the fact that many arts and humanities degrees, especially the creative ones, are expensive because of the techniques and equipment required.
The Government have been very negligent in relation to English as a second language, which has not been mentioned much this afternoon. We need ESOL because there are established black and minority ethnic communities in the UK who need it, EU citizens who have come here and who need it and refugees who need it. The Government have talked the talk, but they have not walked the walk. They have not put the funds behind the Casey review, and that is one of the biggest issues that we have.
While all this is going on, we are waiting for details of the Government’s shared prosperity fund, which is supposed to come to the rescue of further and adult education, among other services, following the withdrawal of funds from the European social fund and the European regional development fund. However, there is no sign of it. All that we have are two sentences, one in the Conservative party manifesto and the other in a Tory party conference speech.
Let me touch briefly on adult education, about which I feel very strongly because I taught as a part-time course tutor for the Open University for 20 years. There has been a huge decline in the number of adults accessing education over the past decade and in the number of adults aged 21 and over can access higher education. That is affecting the Open University, Birkbeck and the Workers Educational Association, and, sadly, many higher education institutions have closed, including the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. Yet we know that we will need the skills of older people—and, indeed, their life chances—post Brexit, given the economic challenges and the fourth industrial revolution.
These warnings are not new—they featured in Sandy Leach’s review in 2008—but they have been made all the more urgent by the Government’s abject failure to help existing workforces to upskill and retrain. The situation demands money, a strategy and a longitudinal vision comparable to that of David Blunkett’s “The Learning Age”. For all their rhetoric and modest initiatives,  the Government do not have any of that. We are thinking towards the 2030s with our planned national education service.
I have said on a number of occasions that the worlds of higher and further education—with online and digital lifelong learning, which requires more enabling skills as well as rapidly acquired ones—are converging faster than people in Whitehall expect. That is why we will establish a lifelong learning commission to meet those challenges. That new world will come, but the crucial question is this: will we in the UK be leaders in that process, or the mere recipients of technologies and systems evolved in north America or south-east Asia? We owe it to all our generations, from seven to 70, to rise to that challenge, but unfortunately the Government are not doing that at the moment.

Anne Milton: I, too, want to pay tribute to some of the speakers in this debate. I must mention the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), because she is so passionate about this subject that she could have had the whole debate to herself. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards for opening the debate and setting out all the things we are doing to improve education in schools. I completely reject what the Opposition said. While the Schools Minister and I have different responsibilities in education, we have a shared aim to improve quality and have high standards. I pay tribute to all those who contributed to the debate, and it is clear that everybody has a passion for education and a desire for this county to set high standards of education at every level and to keep on raising those standards.
Let me reiterate some of the improvements that there have been. The phonics screening check has increased since its introduction from 58% success in 2012 to 82% in 2018; that is a 24% improvement. Between 2016 and 2018 the proportion of pupils reaching the expected standards has risen from 66% to 75% in reading tests and from 70% to 76% in maths. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like hearing this stuff. Critically, the gap between disadvantaged pupils and others in secondary schools narrowed by 10% between 2011 and 2017.
My right hon. Friend the Schools Minister opened the debate by talking about many of those figures and commenting on the impact of the improvements in teaching and learning. I pay tribute to King’s College in my constituency, which has made a massive improvement. In the words of Ofsted,
“staff have transformed the atmosphere in the school through raising expectations of pupils’ behaviour.”
Principal Alastair McKenzie should rightly, along with the staff, be proud of what he has achieved. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) mentioned the need for good behaviour and order in schools, and King’s College shows what can be done when schools put their mind to that.
I praise my right hon. Friend the Schools Minister for the work he has done, and I say to those on the Opposition Front Bench that no one is better read in teaching methods. Against considerable opposition, he has driven ahead, because he, like me, knows that young people and children deserve nothing less.
I am fully aware of the funding pressures in FE. Opposition Members mentioned austerity as if it just dropped on us from the sky; it came upon us as a result of the financial crisis, and Conservative Members do not want our children and grandchildren to be burdened with paying back the debt that Opposition Members would rack up.
The results in FE are very good. Some 82% of colleges are outstanding or good, and the proportion of good or outstanding general colleges has increased from 69% to 76% over the last year, while 83% of sixth-form colleges and 80% of independent learning providers are outstanding or good. Of learners who completed FE courses in 2014-15, 58% got jobs and 22% went into further learning. Some 90% of 16 to 19-year-olds completing level 3 courses at sixth-form colleges and 86% completing level 3 courses at other FE colleges went on to further learning or sustained employment.
The figures are good, but I know that there are significant funding pressures in the FE sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) raised that point, and he, like me, will continue to raise the critical role that FE plays in improving social mobility, giving younger people a chance and older people a second or even third chance. FE plays a critical role in productivity and improving social mobility, and I am sure hon. Members will not hesitate to highlight that to the Chancellor.
I want to mention two things that are behind many of the reforms we have made in apprenticeships and technical education. The Richard review in 2012 said that apprenticeships should be redefined, that the focus should be on their outcome, that they should recognise industry standards and that it should be clearly set out what apprentices should know. It also stated that apprenticeships should be meaningful and relevant for employers, that apprentices should have achieved a level 2 or 3 in English and maths before they can complete their apprenticeship, be it in functional skills or at GCSE, and that some off-site learning was essential, with a minimum duration of a year. We have ensured all those things.
Apprenticeships are available to all, at every level from level 2 to level 7, with 20% of the learning off the job and a meaningful assessment at the end, which gives apprentices a currency that they can take to future employers. It is critical that we get them right. In fact, there is a tsunami of apprenticeships coming. I recently visited an NHS trust that is now spending 20% of its levy, and it will be spending its levy out by 2020. That is the way we can get the skills this country needs and give young people—and, indeed, older people—the opportunities they need.
I also want to mention the Wolf review, which made a number of findings and conclusions regarding vocational and technical education. Those findings have largely guided many of the reforms, along with the work that Lord Sainsbury has done. It is vital that we take this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get technical education right. The introduction of T-levels will be critical to ensuring that we have technical qualifications that are on a par with academic qualifications. I have mentioned the contribution of Lord Sainsbury, which, along with the work of the Gatsby Foundation, has guided much of our work on the forthcoming T-levels. As I said, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for change.
I want to mention a number of the contributions that have been made today. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) never misses an opportunity to praise those working in the public sector. He mentioned exclusions, and I know that a review is being led by Edward Timpson, who spent a long time as a Minister in the Department for Education. That review will be reporting in the new year. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle made many contributions, and I know that she will use every opportunity to raise the issue of further education funding. Her college has been through a difficult time, but it has had considerable financial support. The bit that frequently gets missed is the £330 million that we spend on supporting the FE sector. There is more to come down the line, and that funding is critical to getting colleges such as hers back on track.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough raised a terrible incident of bullying in his constituency. Hearing about it today bears no relation to how terrible the impact is when we watch it online. Relationships and sex education and personal, social, health and economic education have a role to play, and he also mentioned the role of behaviour in schools in young people’s lives. That is indeed critical, as are many other issues.
My hon. Friend was appropriately moved by those who have turned around the lives of young people. I have the best job in the Government, because I spend my life doing things like attending the national apprenticeship awards, which I did last night, and hearing stories of young people who have turned their lives around —who have had that second, third or fourth chance and have got an apprenticeship and some qualifications so that they can start a life that they never would have thought possible when they left school.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle also paid considerable attention to off-rolling, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards would be happy to meet her to talk about that. He was not present in the Chamber at the time, and I am sure that she would like a more detailed conversation.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) was absolutely right to say that education is at the heart of so much. As a former Public Health Minister, I know that education correlates more closely to health than to many other things. She also mentioned crime, and we have much to do in that area. We have a project running in five cities, including Leicester, the west midlands, Manchester, Leeds and London. I have been listening to the details of the work that is being done down in Bristol, which has been brilliant in increasing diversity and turning young people away from crime.
In closing, I must mention a couple of issues briefly. We all face a world, politicians as much as anybody else, in which our lives are dominated by social media. It is not only the children who are affected; the problems that teachers face are not dissimilar to those facing their pupils. A number of Departments are working to ensure that the impact of social media on all our lives is reduced, because its adverse effects on mental health and the stresses it brings are truly dreadful in some instances.
I must also mention the role of WorldSkills. You might not be familiar with it, Mr Deputy Speaker; I suggest you go to the website. WorldSkills sees 50 or 60 countries competing in a similar number of disciplines, with some of the national winners coming from our devolved Administrations. I am particularly disappointed that the Scottish Government are not going to contribute financially to WorldSkills, particularly bearing in mind the success of some of the young people in Scotland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) highlighted the successful performance of young people and the improvement of many. Like me, she sat on the Opposition Benches during the Blair and Brown years, when performance most certainly did not match the words that we heard from the then Government—there was nothing on further education or technical education, just a lot of political rhetoric, I am afraid.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) raised some of the issues around teacher recruitment. I know that the Schools Minister would be happy to meet him again, but he is right that social mobility is at the heart of why we need good-quality education.
I do not blame the current Opposition Front Benchers—they possibly were not involved at the time, and I am much older than many of them—but I do blame the Labour party of all those decades ago for how we saw children’s education sacrificed to pursue political ideology. I remember—[Interruption.] Opposition Members say it is nonsense. I remember the Inner London Education Authority, which banned punctuation, banned grammar, banned capital letters and refused to let the police into schools. All of us on the Conservative Benches involved in education—I also give considerable praise to our officials in the Department—want to make sure that, wherever someone comes from and whoever they know, everybody gets the chance to get on in life that they deserve. We will never cease in our mission to make changes, refine what we are doing and take on political rhetoric and ideology to make sure that young people get the education that they deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered improving education standards.

Petition - College Funding

Julian Lewis: With impeccable timing, I trust you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, after a debate like that, I rise to present a petition organised and promoted by Charlotte Jones and Laura Whitcher of Brockenhurst College in my constituency, an outstanding further education college, on the funding differential that has developed between schools and FE colleges. Instead of the usual few introductory remarks, I simply place on the record a quotation from Amanda Spielman, Ofsted’s chief inspector, who wrote to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee recently saying:
“While it is true to say that spending per pupil in primary and secondary schools has increased significantly in real terms since the early 1990s, the same is not true for further education and skills (FES) spending. I have expressed my concerns before, based  on our inspection evidence, that the real-term cuts to FES funding are affecting the sustainability and quality of FES provision. My strong view is that the government should use the forthcoming spending review to increase the base rate for 16 to 18 funding.”
The petition states:
The petition of the students at Brockenhurst College in the New Forest East constituency,
Declares that college funding must be urgently increased to sustainable levels, including immediate parity with recently announced increases to school funding, which will give all students a fair chance, give college staff fair pay and provide the high quality skills the country needs post-Brexit; further that funding for colleges has been cut almost by 30% in the last 10 years causing a significant reduction in the resources available for teaching and support of sixth formers in schools and colleges; potentially restricted course choice; fewer adults in learning; pressures on staff pay and workload; and further that an online Parliamentary petition on this matter received 40,000 signatures in its first week and now stands at 58,000.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Education, together with her Majesty’s Treasury to increase at the earliest opportunity funding for colleges to fair and sustainable levels.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002286]

HIV and World AIDS Day

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jeremy Quin.)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: On 1 December 1988, we observed the first World AIDS Day. It was created as an international day to raise awareness of the AIDS pandemic caused by the spread of HIV and to mourn those who had died from the disease. In two days’ time, we mark its 30th anniversary, and this event gives us pause to reflect on how far we have come and to remember those we have lost.
Such events are also deeply personal to me, because next year I will be marking an anniversary of my own —10 years since I became HIV-positive. It has been a long journey from the fear of acceptance to today and, hopefully, advocacy, knowing that my treatment keeps me healthy and protects any partner that I may have.
When you are first diagnosed, you get that call from the clinic and they just say, “You need to come in.” They do not tell you the details, and you know immediately that something is wrong. All the different worst-case scenarios flash through your mind, and of course, being a sexually active young man, HIV is one of them. Going in, you kind of know that something is wrong and it might well be serious, but at the same time you are working out all the ways that this is just some joke, some technical error, some tiny thing they are going to tell you that you will be laughing about later. You try to imagine the ways you are going to get out of this, and then in that NHS room, with those cream carpets and the plastic seating we all know, they tell you, and it hits you like a wall. Although you have prepared yourself for it in your mind, nothing quite prepares you for when they say those words. I remember looking up at that ceiling—those false ceilings you get—and wishing that one of the tiles would rip away and it would suck me up, and that I would wake up and it would all be a dream and all be over.
But, of course, the reality is that that is not what happens. Instead, you walk out of that room and, even with all the greatest support and advice that they offer, you feel totally numb. You have a million things running through your mind and, at the same time, a sense of absolute nothingness.
I have decided to make this announcement and speech today, because earlier this year I was at an awards ceremony in Brighton. I had nominated Gary Pargeter, who for a number of years has been running a local club for people living with HIV called Lunch Positive. He had won the award and people were coming up to talk about how important the project was and how brave he had been to talk about his HIV status, and I felt like, “I am watching someone who has done inspiring work, and I am proud to have nominated him, but I have not told anyone else in this room that I am HIV positive, too.” Just like so many who attend Lunch Positive, I am lucky because the medication means I will not get sick and I cannot transmit HIV. I felt that if Gary and so many others can talk openly about it, then so should I.
The second reason I wanted to have this debate today is because we are genuinely on the cusp of eradicating new HIV transmissions in this country. Figures today  show that we are already, in parts of this country, halting the rates of HIV diagnosis, but we are at a fork in the road and I worry that we might be starting to head in the wrong direction, with £700 million of cuts to public health having been made between 2014 and 2017. We are not investing in the universal roll-out of PrEP—Pre-exposure prophylaxis—the pill that prevents HIV. So it is important for me politically to speak out.
Finally, I wanted to be able to stand here in this place and say to those who are living with HIV that their status does not define them and we can be whoever we want to be, and to say to those who have not been tested, perhaps out of fear, that it is better to live in knowledge than to die in fear. HIV in this country is no longer the death sentence it once was. A recent study led by the University of Bristol found that due to the advances in HIV treatment, people living with HIV can expect to live a near normal life. The improvement in survival rates for people with HIV is one of the greatest success stories of recent times. What was once considered a terminal disease is now seen as a manageable condition. Yet this information has not changed the narrative, which is still, sadly, framed in those scare campaigns of the tombstones of the 1980s. So much of LGBT culture also is marked by this spectre of HIV, which has led to an incredible sense of fear about the disease.
In that hospital room, and in the days and weeks that followed, I had to come to terms with that fear myself. I am a HIV-positive man, but because I have been taking the right medication for several years I am what the NHS calls “HIV-positive undetectable”. That means not only can HIV not be detected in my system and so I do not get sick, but I cannot transmit HIV to someone else. As the virus lie undetectable and dormant in my body, my medication ensures that the virus does not reactivate, does not progress and cannot be passed on. That is why the NHS says “undetectable equals untransmittable”. UNAIDS highlights three large studies conducted between 2007 and 2016 of HIV transmissions among thousands of couples where one partner was positive and the other was negative. In those studies there was not a single case of sexual transmission of HIV from a positive undetectable person to a HIV-negative partner. It is safer to have sex with someone who is HIV-positive undetectable than with someone who does not know their status, because undetectable equals untransmittable.
Understanding that I was unable to transmit HIV sexually has been life-changing, too. I went from thinking that I would never have a HIV-negative partner, or that if I had sex with someone, I could pass this on, to knowing that I can live a normal life and that any partner I have is totally protected. I cannot transmit HIV to my sexual partner, I have a perfectly healthy life, so my announcement here today should go totally unnoticed—

Tan Dhesi: My hon. Friend is being immensely courageous in what he is doing today. I, for one, am sure that his bravery will reduce the stigma and the fear of so many living in our country and beyond.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I thank my hon. Friend for that. He is right to say that my name will help those people, and it might appear in tomorrow’s newspapers  as a result of my being the first MP to declare themselves HIV-positive in this Chamber and the second, after only Chris Smith, to openly live with HIV as an MP.

Karen Lee: I just want to say what a typical gesture of my hon. Friend this is and how proud of him we all are.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Perhaps foolishly, to gauge what the public reaction might be like, I went on social media to read some of the comments on recent HIV news stories. One does not have to scroll down far to find comments like:
“Anyone with HIV who has sex should be tried for murder”,
or
“fags getting what they deserve”,
or “disgusting lifestyle choice”. Now, most of the people behind such comments will be homophobes who are weaponising HIV to attack LGBT people. If it was not HIV, they would find something else, because they are haters and they are not pleasant people.
But HIV stigma is not just a symptom of homophobes. Even the most well-meaning people can perpetuate HIV stigma. It takes many shapes. It can be believing that HIV and AIDS are always associated with a death sentence. It can be thinking that HIV is transmitted only through sex. It is thinking that HIV infections are the result of some personal or moral fault. It can be believing inaccurate information about how HIV is transmitted, which in turn creates irrational behaviour and misconceptions about personal risk.
Before I was diagnosed, I myself perpetuated some of those stigmas, so it is not without judgment that I ask people to reflect; it is a genuine ask that we begin to think, talk and act differently when it comes to HIV. That is even harder when there is a taboo about talking about sex, which means that stigma is often compounded, thereby creating a more risky environment because people do not seek the treatment that they need.
The Sussex Beacon in my constituency is one of only two residential care facilities in the country for people living with HIV. It originally started as a hospice in the 1990s, when three to four people died there each week. Fortunately, end-of-life care is now a rare occurrence at the Beacon, and today most of its support services are utilised by people with HIV from marginalised groups who face a big stigma. Older people diagnosed late, women, black and ethnic minorities—all these groups are disproportionately affected by stigma and rely on the good work of the Sussex Beacon and other charities like it. But their funding is being reduced.
Yesterday, I was lucky enough to get a photo with Stiggy the Stigmasaurus at the Martin Fisher Foundation, as part of the foundation’s campaign to make HIV stigma history. I hope that Members who could not be there yesterday will be able to join me in that pledge going forward. Stigma causes a treatable disease to become life-threatening, because of the impact on an individual’s mental health and their access to medication. No person diagnosed with HIV today should feel any less able than anyone else to thrive and enjoy life because of their status.
Stigma is not just a UK problem; it is a global one. Fifteen years ago, 200,000 people around the world were receiving treatment for HIV. Today, the number is 22 million, but we still have 15 million more who need access to regular medicine.

Jim Shannon: First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing his personal story to the House today? I mean that very much. I also wish him continued good health and that he continues to prosper, as he quite clearly is doing.
I mentioned to him before the debate that I wanted to intervene, and I wish to bring to his attention the Elim church in my constituency. The church has an HIV programme in Swaziland, which has the highest levels of HIV in the world. Every year, the children from a choir group come over. Every one of them is HIV-positive, but every one of them is surviving today because of the medication that is available. If the medication is there, we can do lots of things, save lives and give opportunity. Among many churches and individuals around the world, there is a lot of good will to help.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: That is quite right.
We are making progress on treatment, but when it comes to stigma we still have so much further to go. Last week, I was in Kenya with the International Development Committee and met a HIV-positive mother of eight children from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Although she was on medication, she had suffered such abuse that she was forced to flee the DRC and now lives in a refugee camp. Because of the prejudice and violence that she faced as a result of her status, she was forced to leave without her children, and she knows not of their future.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is making an absolutely brilliant and historic speech. I am very grateful that he mentioned my good friend, Chris Smith, who very bravely told the world in 1984 that he was gay and proud of it, and we are proud of Chris for doing that. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend has brought up the international context, where there are appalling levels of prejudice and abuse against HIV-positive people and against the LGBT community of many countries around the world. We just need to send out a message from this House of Commons that this country has changed its attitudes. We have done a great deal medically to help people. We need to ensure that the rest of the world understands that we can do the same in every other country. We have to close our minds to prejudice and open up our minds to human rights and justice for people all across the globe.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and I totally agree with him. There are some countries in the world I may now struggle to travel to because of this announcement. It is important that we continue to make international efforts. I do not have time to talk about all the international aspects here. I commend the work of the HIV/AIDS Alliance and plan to come back to this House in future months to talk about its ENDAIDS 2030 Festival, which is really important.
Turning back to the UK, it is the case not just that HIV is treatable, but that it is preventable with one tablet a day. A person can prevent themselves from contracting HIV with pre-exposure prophylaxis. PrEP is revolutionising the fight against HIV transmissions. It has an almost 100% success rate, a higher rate than condoms, in the prevention of HIV, and it is just one pill. We expect this pill to be soon available as a generic  drug and, according to the NHS’s own analysis, it could save the health service £1 billion in preventing HIV transmissions for future generations. Astoundingly, however, the only way to access PrEP in England is through a limited trial. This is not a medical trial—those have been done and approved. This is not about financing—we know the cost. This trial, as far as I can see, is about delaying the roll-out of PrEP in England because someone meddling in the Ministry thinks that they know better than doctors when it comes to people’s health. It seems to me that this trial is more concerned about what a person does between the sheets than the health of the nation. Despite being just one year into this three-year trial, 3,000 additional places have already had to be added, and it looks like the 13,000 places will run out early next year. England now lags behind all the other nations in the UK as the only country with capped PrEP access on the NHS. There are two years to go until this trial ends, yet people cannot get immediate access to PrEP, with many clinics now having long waiting lists, and some completely full.
We know that there are cases of young men who have sought out this prevention pill and have been turned away because the clinics cannot accommodate them, and they have subsequently become HIV-positive. Those men now have to live with HIV and everything associated with it because of the misguided morality of this decision. Let us make no mistake: these are not isolated cases. The longer this Government wait to roll out PrEP properly, the more people will be diagnosed.
Will the Minister intervene to ensure that PrEP is made routinely available on the NHS in England—just like his Government have already done with Northern Ireland with direct rule, just like the Scottish Government have done, and just like a Labour Government have done in Wales? Failing that, will he at least uncap the trial to ensure that those trying to access the drug can do so? Will he reverse public health cuts, including those in sexual health, so that the Government meet demand, including that of people affected by HIV, otherwise we seriously risk undoing the really good progress that we have all made?
Just today, the latest Public Health England statistics show that the UK has met its UN AIDS target of 90-90-90, ahead of 2020, which was the date. This is amazing progress, with 92% of people living with HIV diagnosed, 98% on treatment and 97% with undetectable viral load, meaning that they cannot pass it on.
At the Terrence Higgins Trust World AIDS Day reception earlier this week, I am told that the Minister hinted that the Government were considering bolstering their ambition on HIV to committing to reaching zero new HIV transmissions by 2030. In the light of today’s statistics, now is the time to seize that opportunity of reaching zero new HIV infections and be a true global leader. Can the Minister provide details of how the UK Government plan to end HIV infections and what timescale they will commit to?
At present, one young person every day is still diagnosed with HIV and young people continue to suffer some of the worst sexual health outcomes. We cannot be complicit on this. Will the Minister agree to work with the Department for Education to ensure that relationship and sex education guidance has a strong focus on not only HIV prevention, but anti-HIV stigma? Will the Minister also liaise with Department for International Development colleagues  to ensure that research funding is increased so that we can make huge gains in scientific breakthroughs to eradicate this disease globally?
In two days’ time, on World AIDS Day, I will stand with my community to mourn the losses of those who have died of AIDS. I will do so at the Brighton AIDS memorial—the only such dedicated public memorial in the country. I will stand there in the knowledge that I will live a life that so many could not. I am able to do that because of the people who have come before me: the people who have fought and lost their lives, and the people who stood up and had their lives changed. We owe it to these people to beat the disease—something we have the power to do. I hope that future generations will look at HIV in the same way that we look at smallpox and polio, as diseases that were once killers but can now be eradicated.
LGBT people often talk about coming out as something that you constantly have to do to new neighbours, friends and work colleagues. You could say the same about your HIV status. I have spent many nervous moments deciding whether to tell new friends and acquaintances about my status. The lump forms in your throat and your heart flutters, and you finally kind of blurt it out and hopefully move on. Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me this platform to do just that. I thank my friends, family and colleagues for supporting me. I also thank the Terrence Higgins Trust for all its work and the support it has given me in preparing for this debate.
We have the ability to end new HIV transmissions, as well as to end stigma and discrimination—not only here, but globally. I hope we can all make that our mission. [Applause.]

Lindsay Hoyle: We should not clap in the House, but I understand why people have. That was a very brave and moving speech, which will give hope to a lot of people around the world. I should also say that I broke with convention today by allowing an Opposition Front-Bench Member to speak in the Adjournment debate. Please be reassured that this is not the norm; it is a one-off.

Stephen Doughty: As chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, may I first offer a whole hearted tribute to the bravery, courage and example of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle)? He has not only shared with us his own very personal experiences in such a clear and honest way that will have an impact in this country and globally; he has also—I would expect nothing less from him—not shied away from the fact that HIV is political. He has mentioned many of the issues still faced by those living with HIV in this country and around the globe, including stigma, discrimination and a lack of access to services. If any message goes out from here today, it should be that we need to continue the fight and end this by 2030, and we can end it. After the example that my hon. Friend has shown today, I am all the more confident that we will do so.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend on behalf of other vice-chairs who wanted to be here but could not—Baroness Barker, Lord Black, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams)—and who are incredibly proud of what he has done today.
As my hon. Friend said, the situation has dramatically transformed since the first World Aids Day 30 years ago. I remember coming to these issues while working in the international development sector for World Vision, Oxfam and others, and I look back at some of the horrific statistics, particularly on young people orphaned or made vulnerable, on those living with HIV and on those dying from AIDS. We saw this as an unreachable mountain that could not be overcome. The progress that has been made over the past 15 years is remarkable, but we must not have a slipping back in that progress.

Patrick Grady: I would like to express, on my own behalf and that of my SNP colleagues who cannot be here, our commendation for the incredibly powerful and moving testimony that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) has given. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is absolutely correct that that speech will be heard not just here, and not just across this country, but around the world. It provides an opportunity to tackle the stigma that is still associated with HIV in so many parts of the world and that prevents people seeking the treatment, or even the diagnosis, that they need, despite all the opportunities and all the funding that is provided. There has to be a change of mindset as well. So we are thoroughly behind what we are hearing today.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and completely agree with what he has said.
As my hon. Friend said, access to antiretroviral treatments has revolutionised both treatment and prevention. That has enabled many HIV-positive people to achieve viral suppression where the level of HIV in the blood is so low that it is undetectable and, crucially—we have to emphasise this—untransmittable to others. U=U—undetectable equals untransmittable—is one of the messages that must ring loud and clear from his speech and from this House. It has transformed the medical understanding of HIV from a fatal and emergency disease to one that is chronic and manageable, and where people can live long, happy, healthy lives.
But we must recognise the challenges that exist, particularly internationally, among the world’s 36.9 million people living with HIV. That is still a huge figure. One in four remain unaware of their HIV status. Among those who have tested HIV-positive, 21% globally do not have access to treatment and, of those who have access to antiretroviral treatment, 19% have not yet achieved viral suppression.
I want to turn briefly to some of the key challenges that we face in the UK, which my hon. Friend laid out. Forty-one per cent. of people are still diagnosed late and one in eight people living with HIV do not know their status. In October, we held an event here where we heard from a lady who preferred not to use her real name who had been diagnosed with HIV in her late 50s. She had been left with lifelong physical complications and, tragically, suffered a mental health breakdown  because of the extreme stress caused by the diagnosis, the lack of support, the fear, the stigma and the discrimination that she thought she would experience. Holding back tears, she told that room full of strangers that she had been unable to share her HIV status with her friends or family. That shows the courage of the example set by my hon. Friend today. Unfortunately, there are still many people out there, including many I know, who would not have the confidence to do this or even to share their status in private circumstances. We have to turn that around and end the stigma and discrimination.
I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend said about PrEP. It is simply extraordinary that we are still waiting for the English NHS to make this routinely available. People have told me this week that they want to access PrEP and cannot do so. That simply cannot be the right way forward, from a purely public health point of view, from a rights point of view, and from a cost point of view. In all respects, it is wrong. I hope that the Minister can give us some positive news on that and that we will see the progress that we have seen in the other nations. I pay tribute, as my hon. Friend did, to our Labour Health Secretary in Wales who has shown quite a lot of political and practical leadership, as a Minister, on this issue.
I was disappointed when we had the Department of Health and Social Care prevention strategy last month. there is much in there for us all to agree with, while it failed to mention sexual health at all. That was a huge disappointment because there is a huge amount in the strategy that very much applies to the agenda that we have been talking about today. I hope that the Minister can explain what the Department is going to do to ensure sexual health and HIV prevention are at the heart of that prevention strategy for the NHS overall. I also emphasise what my hon. Friend said about demand for sexual health services rising and the challenges facing particular communities, whether the BME community, the LGBT community, young people, sex workers or injecting drug users. Sometimes we shy away from talking about unfashionable and difficult topics in this House, but we need to have honest and frank conversations if we are going to end HIV and AIDS in this country.
Globally, there are still 15 million people who are not accessing treatment because of inadequate health systems and funding, discriminatory laws, stigma and discrimination, and colonial-era laws that ensure that people do not get the treatment they need. The UK needs to lead the way in ending HIV stigma for good and supporting these programmes through the work of the Department for International Development.
I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who announced at the AIDS conference in Amsterdam an increase in funding for the Robert Carr Fund, for which so many of us have campaigned, and support for civil society organisations to support key populations.
It was inspiring yesterday to hear from not only a young female AIDS activist from Zimbabwe called Audrey, but two former Presidents—the former President of Botswana, Festus Mogae, and the former President of Mozambique, Joaquim Chissano. President Mogae spoke to us in a way that I did not expect. He spoke about all the things that we know we need to do to  tackle HIV, but he stood up as a former African leader and said, “We need to address the needs of the LGBT population, the needs of the trans population, the needs of sex workers and the needs of injecting drug users.” That sent an incredibly strong signal to leaders across Africa and the world that we must talk about these issues and take action on them, and I hope the UK will continue to provide that crucial support.
I pay tribute again to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown for his courage and bravery and the message that it sends. I hope the Minister will have some hopeful words for us about the situation in the UK. I want to end by thanking all the organisations that do so much to support our APPG’s work, including the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National AIDS Trust, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, STOPAIDS, Youth Stop AIDS, the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV and so many more. I thank all the organisations that are active in our communities and, I am sorry to say, are filling the gaps left by cuts to provision. They are out there making the case, supporting people living with HIV and taking us all down the road to ending this epidemic by 2030.

Emma Dent Coad: I would like to commend all those who have spoken, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for his bravery in speaking out in this place. I am sure his speech will be heard around the country.
As a graduate of the 1980s London club scene, I know that I had a narrow escape from contracting HIV. I remember the stories in the early ’80s coming from San Francisco about people dying from minor ailments such as flu. It was originally thought to be something to do with taking too much amyl nitrite, or poppers. Eventually the virus was identified, but it was too late for some. Quite a few of my friends became ill, and we had many funerals in the mid-‘80s.
I remember the London Lighthouse project opening just down the road from my house, and Diana, Princess of Wales, came to open it. She did a huge amount to disperse the stigma. We will never forget the photograph of her holding hands with an HIV/AIDS sufferer, which made people think again about how we contract AIDS and showed pure compassion for people who were ill.
I was careful, but before I had my children, I had an HIV test. The results took an agonising two weeks. I was fine. I know that people diagnosed with HIV now live long and healthy lives with the treatment currently available, but I hear anecdotally that, because of that, some people are not being sufficiently careful with their health. Two weeks ago, I took the test again in my local hospital, having been asked to do so as part of the campaign. It now takes two minutes—you get the result immediately. Nobody needs to risk contracting HIV, but if anybody does, I recommend that they spend those two minutes to save their lives and those of their loved ones.

Thangam Debbonaire: I want to add my support for the campaign that my hon. Friend mentioned. I too did that. I think those working for the Terrence Higgins Trust referred to it as “pricking the finger”, or some quite naughty expression, when it suggested that I could show that it is not that difficult  and does not take that long, and there is counselling and support around it. I recommend that any Member who has not already taken the plunge does so and shows HIV/AIDS the finger. I thank her for raising that.

Emma Dent Coad: Absolutely. I recommend that everybody does so. It literally takes two minutes.
I would like to finish by saying that, as regards ending the stigma, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown has made a very powerful statement. This is your Diana moment.

Steve Brine: That was an unexpected but lovely thing for the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) to say at the end of her speech. I believe “Give HIV the finger” is the expression that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) was looking for. Wow! Madam Deputy Speaker, you have just taken over in the Chair, and you have missed a treat. I suggest that you watch it back later. Let me, as it says in my brief, congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) on securing the debate. Obviously, I share his passion for the topic, but I did not know what he was going to say until we spoke just before the debate, and even then I did not know how he was going to say it and the extent to which he was going to put so much of the personal into it.
The turnout of the hon. Gentleman’s friends and colleagues around him for his speech was a testament to its power and to how much they obviously think of him. Clapping is not right in the Chamber, but even I did clap after his speech. I do not like to clap in the Chamber or in church, but I have done one of them. The look on his face when his colleagues were all standing up and clapping him was wonderful. If I had thought to do so, I would have stood up and taken a photo for him, because it will be a nice moment for him. [Interruption.] No, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are not at all happy about that. I have gone too far. Edit that bit out, Hansard.
It was an incredible speech and it was a very brave thing to do. Following the debate that had just taken place on education—we were here for the winding-up speeches—which got a little political at times, the Adjournment debate has once again shown that it is Parliament’s best kept secret. It is where all the good things go on, and this was certainly a good thing.
As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, World AIDS Day is 30 years old this year. We had a wonderful reception in Speaker’s House on Tuesday night, with the Terrence Higgins Trust, and some really good friends were there. It is the second time I have done that now. As I said then, this week and Saturday will be about remembering loved ones who lost their challenge against and their battle to HIV. However, it will be a celebration, as he said. I note that he said that he will be at the Brighton AIDS memorial at the weekend, and I wish him well with that, as I do everybody who will be with him from his constituency and, I am sure, from much further afield. This is also a chance to say to say how much has changed since the late ’80s.

Eddie Hughes: I just want to say briefly how fortunate I feel I am to have been walking past the Chamber, seen that there was this debate and taken the opportunity to come in. My first wife was a nurse, and I remember when she came home from work—I think 27 years ago—having just treated her first AIDS case, and we were both scared. Since then, the treatment of it and the understanding and appreciation of it in society have changed so dramatically. I realise now, having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), that there is still some way to go for those who are hesitant about telling new friends and acquaintances, but it felt like a genuine privilege to have been here to hear him speak, so I thank him very much.

Steve Brine: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
As I was saying, much has changed since the late ’80s: health needs are different; we have better drugs and better diagnostic tools; and, as has been said, attitudes towards HIV and AIDS are totally different and totally transformed.
The hon. Member for Kensington mentioned Princess Diana—the original one, as opposed to the new one—and that incredible moment. I will repeat what I said the other night in Speaker’s House. I was in secondary school at that time, and I remember that powerful image being broadcast. I was only a teenager at the time, and little did I know that I would one day be the public health Minister talking about these issues. It was one of those images that is really seared into our national conscience. What a great loss that lady is to so many social causes, as well as of course to her family. It was an incredible image.
As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown has said, today, it is not about dying of AIDS, but about living with HIV. I would go further, however, because it is about more than that, is it not? It is not really “living with”; it is just “living”. I am also very privileged to be the cancer Minister, and how many times cancer patients say to me—my shadow, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), knows this, because people very often used to say this to us when we ran the all-party group on breast cancer together—that, “I am not my cancer. It is just something that I do and something that I have as well.” Happily, HIV is now just part of the hon. Gentleman: I am sure he would rather it was not, but it is not just something he lives with; it is something that he lives.
A big public health display in the foyer of the Department of Health and Social Care currently shows all the different public health campaigns over the years. The terrifying tombstone image is obviously something that we have, rightly, moved on from, but it is still an incredible part of our public health campaign history. Back then, the Government made the bold move to run a major public information campaign on HIV—“Don’t die of ignorance”—and we piloted needle exchange schemes, introduced HIV testing and raised the prospect with the public. If we consider the HIV epidemic in this country, we can be proud of the record of Governments of all parties over many years.
As figures released today show, the UK has met the UNAIDS 90-90-90 target—yes!—and it is one of the first countries in the world to do so. Members from across the House are proud of that, and the latest report  from Public Health England showed that in 2017 an estimated 92% of people living with HIV in the UK were diagnosed, 98% of those were on treatment and 97% of those on treatment were unable to pass on their infection. That is a major achievement that we should be proud of. More importantly, those who work in our health service and have done so for years—like the partner of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes)—should be even more proud.
Prevention is one of my passions, and one of the Secretary of State’s priorities. We do not yet have a cure for HIV, which is why prevention is so important. Our efforts to prevent HIV and AIDS have been highly successful, and much has been said about the international dimension, which I will touch on. The UK is a world leader in efforts to end the AIDS epidemic, including through our major investment in the global fund. Our largest investments are through multilateral organisations such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, UNAIDS and Unitaid, given their greater reach and scale. I met Lelio from Unitaid at the G20 in Argentina last month, and it is doing such good things with the investment that we announced in Amsterdam, to which the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) referred. I work closely with my hon. Friends in the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office, and these three Departments are very tight and work closely together on this issue.
Excellent initiatives such as the MenStar Coalition aim to get more young men tested and on to life-saving HIV treatment to protect them and their partners. There is the Elton John AIDS Foundation and other partners, and MenStar is rolling out a self-testing campaign in east Africa. The UK is the second largest donor to Unitaid—a charity that does so much work against stigma—and provides an annual contribution of around €60 million as part of our 20-year funding commitment.
There has been much talk about the domestic situation, and NHS England launched the world’s largest pre-exposure prophylaxis—PrEP—trial last year. To be honest, I had never heard of that until I became a health Minister—why would I have?—but once officials had explained it to me, it did not take me long to think that it sounded like a real no-brainer. I know that many people are eagerly awaiting the results of the trial. I am one of them, and my officials know of my impatience, which is legendary in our Department. It is crucial to have the right information to address the major questions and effectively implement the PrEP trial on a larger scale.
The point about savings was well made and not lost on me. I am not in a position to make a policy promise at the Dispatch Box today, but on the point about places made by the hon. Members for Brighton, Kemptown and for Cardiff South and Penarth, I say only that I am listening closely and they should continue those discussions with me—I know they will. The Department met members of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS to discuss these issues, and they should continue those discussions with me. We are listening. Many of the public health challenges we face today require different approaches and fresh thinking if we are to make progress. Indeed, in the past few years many innovative ways to tackle HIV have emerged, including HIV testing options such as self-sampling and home testing services, which I know are very popular.
I would like to mention the HIV prevention innovation fund, which I am very proud of. Innovative community-led interventions have had a significant role to play in limiting the HIV epidemic in England, so we set up the HIV prevention innovation fund in 2015 to support voluntary sector organisations. The fund has supported many projects since it started. I announced them at an event here in the House last year—the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, who chairs the all-party group, was present. In 2017, we awarded just under £600,000 to 12 projects. I am very pleased to say that we are running the fund again this year. The principle of the fund is something we are carrying over into other areas of policy, because it has been so successful. I want to see us do more of that.
This year we celebrated the 70th birthday of the NHS. I have already mentioned the incredible staff who work across the service. England has an outstanding record of achievements in HIV treatment and care. I want to take this opportunity to recognise and thank everyone for doing that. Care for people with HIV is now highly effective, and increasing numbers of people are living with HIV into older age with normal life expectancy. Antiretroviral therapy has transformed the outlook for people living with HIV, from what used to be a tragic death sentence to a very manageable long-term condition, as we heard so eloquently this afternoon.
Our policy is to make sure that HIV testing is as accessible as possible, in particular to those at increased risk. It is therefore very important that testing is available in a range of clinical and community settings—hence why the innovation fund and its programmes are important. Over the years, local authorities, which are now public health authorities up and down the land, have introduced innovations and improvements of their own, in particular on testing. We know it is working. Testing activity at sexual health services, which we know are under great pressure—we do not deny that for one moment—continues to increase and HIV diagnoses have fallen. HIV testing in sexual health services has increased 15%, from 1.07 million tests in 2013 to 1.24 million in 2017. Most significantly, we have seen a 28% drop in new HIV diagnoses between 2015 and 2017. That is encouraging and good, but we must not be complacent. I assure the House that we are not complacent and we want to continue to maintain this progress.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the prevention strategy. That was a very top line document. I had a meeting this afternoon to discuss the prevention Green Paper, which will follow next year. I can assure him that the long-term plan, which will follow before that, will absolutely have sexual health and HIV in it. I am being very ambitious with officials on that. I know that he will rightly hold us to account and I thank him for giving me a chance to say that.
I want to touch on education and awareness. Education around HIV and how it is transmitted remains absolutely critical, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said in his opening remarks. I am pleased to say that schools will be required to teach relationship and sex education from September 2020. The Government announced that relatively recently. I have been very involved in that in relation to the cancer brief, because I am very keen for schools to responsibly teach cancer awareness to young people. At secondary schools, there will be clear and accurate teaching about sexual matters,  including factual knowledge around sex, sexual health—including HIV—and sexuality. The schools Minister was sitting next to me throughout his speech. He wanted me to pass on his congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his speech.
Testing is the only way to be certain of HIV status. Last week was National HIV Testing Week and the Secretary of State took part. This flagship campaign promotes regular testing among the most at-risk population groups and aims to reduce the rates of late diagnosis or of those remaining undiagnosed. Sadly, stigma remains a significant factor in why people do not test for HIV. I understand that. This can mean that HIV goes untreated and can then be transmitted. It is vital that we continue to break down the stigma, normalise testing and support those most at risk of infection.
I want to mention the “Can’t Pass It On” campaign. Whoever is doing the marketing for the Terrence Higgins Trust is doing a very good job—I know it works with a very good agency. As I said at the reception the other night, I was on the tube the other day with my daughter, who spotted some advertising or branding for testing week. She asked me what it was, because it caught her eye, and I was able to explain it to her. She is only 11. If more parents did that for their children and relatives, it would help to break down that stigma. The trust’s   website has a very good page on the “Can’t Pass It On” campaign that includes different people’s stories, and I have a funny feeling that before we leave the Chamber, “Lloyd’s story” will be on it, with a clip from today in Parliament. I will certainly be clipping it off the Parliament TV website and tweeting it out through the Department of Health’s social media account.
In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on introducing this timely and vital debate, and I wish him and everybody well for Saturday who will be marking World AIDS Day, whether they be remembering and celebrating private, not yet able to do so publicly, and those who, like him, are able to do so publicly. They are all part of the story, and our best wishes and love go to them all. We look forward to brighter futures in this policy area, as we work towards what I am determined will be zero stigma and zero transmissions.

Eleanor Laing: Would it not be wonderful if more people paid attention to the work done in the House in such debates—this excellent, positive, meaningful, emotive and successful debate this afternoon? If only.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.